40K: The Unbeatable List: Adepticon 2016

ali-horz

Come take a look at the list that went all the way at Adeptocon 2016 40K championship.

image via TastyTaste at Blood of Kittens

Here’s the list from winner Aaron Aleong:

adepticon2016-aaron-aleong

 

Here is Goatboy’s armylist breakdown:

“Aaron’s list is a super friends list that can break apart into smaller, still hard to deal with parts.

Adepticon does not have changed rerollable saving throws and full powered Invisiblity so Aaron built a list to try and get as many powerful/combo abilities into as many units as possible.  The list uses the fact that Imperials are the best battle brothers around.
Iron Priest X 2 + Ravenwing Command + DA Chaplain + Azrael gets you the following for example:
  • Reroll 3+ cover save bikers in the Ravenwing command who also get a 4++ from Azrael
  • The Unit is Fearless and can reroll cc hits with the hatred spewing Chaplain
  • Has 10 Str 10 WS 5 reroll to hit attacks form the Iron Priest who has a 2+ Save and 4++ inv save
  • The Cyber Wolves have a 4+ armor save and a 4++ Inv save. They are also characters that can look out sir and take challenges.
  • They command squad grants a 5+ FNP, grants hit and run that can’t be failed with the banner, and gives the unit skilled rider.
  • Oh and Azrael has a +3 to the charges if he wants to take that DA Warlord Trait.
That’s just one Unit without the casting potential from the Librarian council that can be part of another unit with a FNP Chaplain, hit and run, fearless if they want to break off the Chaplain, and a ton of psychic power dice that cast spells on a 2+.  He doesn’t have Tiggie so getting the spells he wants can be harder but that is just thinking about my luck and lack of getting the specific spells I need.  This unit has some powerfists as well from the Techmarine and 1 Point over costed Sanguinary priest.
He adds this with a ton of Objective secured units as well as the Adepticon ruling on Lone Wolves actually being Elites and thus usable in the Champion of Fenris detachment.
But basically it is a big fat Super Friends Death Star with lots of potential to break apart at the end and create a ton of little annoying units of doom.”

Stop for a second to take that in, and start to pull out the stack of codexes and rulebooks you will need to figure out exactly what that army can do.  While you’re waiting let’s note TastyTaste’s take on the overall meta outside of this winning list:

“If you take a look at the lists you will notice one army dominated over the rest: Eldar. Eldar have seven spots in the Top 18 and a few more Eldar shoehorned into other lists! All the Eldar lists had at least one Wraithknight and Scatbike units. Adepticon has full powered D Weapons, so with Eldar having the easiest access this wasn’t a surprise. Still, this is amazingly dominant army, the only other time I can remember an army performing so well was the Grey Knights  at the end of 5th edition. What is impressive are Eldar don’t have any way to get free upgrades or units, they don’t seem to need it. Unless future army rules find a way to easily kill Warp Spiders and Scatbikes I don’t expect Eldar domination to end anytime soon.”

 

There were 43 primary detachment Eldar armies at the 40K Championship event, out of 184 total players.  However, with Eldar allied detachments added to other armies (in particular Tau) the total number of armies containing Eldar was reported as 92. So Eldar are clearly dominating in the meta.

Space Marines came in second place with 33 Primary Detachment armies.

You can see a full listing of the top 16 players’s army lists here via ever vigilant TastyTaste:

Adepticon 2016 – Top 16 Lists

~ What do you think of the current meta?

 

 

  • Simon Chatterley

    It was an illegal list. Lone wolves need a troop.

    Sorry to be negative but it’s forever tainted in my view

    • Gunsheeplol

      You beat me to it. From what I recall lone wolves don’t take up a force org spot.

      • Simon Chatterley

        I’m not saying it was on purpose as mistakes happen but it’s still not right.

        • RauPow

          He was approved to do it because of an email from the TO before the event, which was not posted in the FAQ for the rest of the players to use as well. While I don’t agree with the ruling, it was legal for that tournament. Poor judgement call from the TO, no fault of the player (minus the honest mistake of not paying the 1 point for the Sang Priest bolt pistol).

          • Simon Chatterley

            I was following from the UK. The interwebs (which is a depraved place I’ll agree) was suggesting it was allowed retrospectively.

            If it was before then fair play. However as you say everyone else should have been allowed to do it as well

          • Zingbaby

            Regardless it’s still a super cheesy, cherry-picked WAAC list. And I bet this was his “fluff” list.

          • euansmith

            The fluff is, “A group of dirt poor peasants ask an ageing Astarte to help defend their village against marauders. He gets the old gang together for one last roll of the dice…”

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            Don’t forget the bleach blond woman who’s husband was killed by the marauders and she is forced to raise her child alone…until the most lone wolf of lone wolves shows up and learns how to love again.

          • Zingbaby

            Bahaha

          • euansmith

            “He’s a lonely Lone Wolf who knows what it means to be alone…”

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            His backstory has a random Asian man who taught him all his secrets, sadly the EXACT SAME GROUP OF MARAUDERS are led by another of that Asian mans former students. He is murdered by the man who was like a brother to our hero.

          • euansmith

            “He was like my brother’s cousin’s sister’s father’s uncle to me!!!”

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            What does that make us?

          • Muninwing

            “absolutely nothing!”

          • Muninwing

            this thread of thought is far better than the same frustrating argument in the rest of the comments…

          • Arthfael

            As much as I don’t like the WAAC approach, the fluff is much more flexible than people realise.

        • denzark

          Having looked at the rules and having the advantage of having the same native tongue as the vast majority of if not all of the design studio, I will translate RAW here. No unlockers, no lone wolves. Simples. The TOs may have retrospectively spun it to allow this particular waac abortion of a list- which was so convoluted their list checking failed to spot an extra point. But RAW says this is illegal. Luckily I have not seen as much thunder-twonkery in warhammer world tournaments. He’d probably cheat at downing his jaeger fines as well.

    • eldannardo

      Guess that’s what happens when you take a force made up from four different chapters. He should have just taken servitors, would have been cheaper and they can score objectives.

    • Charon

      Depends on the way you read it. It is the same with Court of the Archon in DE. General accepted ruling is you can pick a lone wolf as Elite choice.
      If you also have troops, the Lone wolf is not elite anymore but needs no slot.
      Court of the archon is the same. Court is HQ, if you have an archon it becomes slotless. Makint he 1 Lhamean + Venom builds possible.

      • Simon Chatterley

        Reads exactly like it says to me..

        • Charon

          As I said it depends on the way you read it while also including it as an elite choice.
          There are people on both sides and there are armys with the same text appying it as it was used at adepticon.
          As long as we do not get an official FAQ it remains up to the TO / players how to handle it.
          They have chosen the “Lone wolf is an Elite choice if you take him without another unit and becomes slotless if you buy him with a troop choice” approach.

          • Muninwing

            it depends on if you are reading it wrong or not…

            two statements.

            one states that you need a troop.

            the other states that it does not take up an elite.

            neither of these has anything to do with the other. so it’s not an if-then. it’s a both-apply. zero confusion here.

          • Charon

            No. First statement is Lone wolf 20 points elite choice.
            Next statement “You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army.”
            This is not you are only allowed to… like in other circumstances.
            Last statement:
            “This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.”

            This selection is the clue here. Now you can argue if “this selection” refers to the unit as such or “the selection together with a troop”

            There are similar instances in other books and each one has been ruled that way.

            You can have another opinion thats fine but your reading is not the only valid one.
            In friendly games it is up how you and your opponent rule it, in tourneys it is up to the TO. Cant see what the fuzz is all about.

          • Asmodai

            I was hoping that someone would spell it out for me. This really makes me sad, if the rule is as clear cut as that then how did the player think it was OK to use and why did the TO OK it.

          • Charon

            Probably because your “clear cut” is different from a lot of other peoples “clear cut”?
            I can see both sides but lean towards the Either solo and elite or with a troop and free interpretation as other instances of the same text are rules the same while restrictions have a very different text

          • Asmodai

            From my understanding it says you must take an unlocking unit to take the lone wolf. That unlocking unit was not taken. I’ve just looked up the codex there and it seems quite clear. Then again I’ve had seasoned players in tournaments argue that void shields can only loose a maximum of 1 shield per shooting attack and that transport vehicles get all the special rules of the passengers they are carrying so it doesn’t surprise me that someone would argue that aswell.

          • Charon

            Thats only a third.
            A Lone wolf is an elite selection in the book.
            Correct?
            Text does not say you MUST. You may select a lone wolf per “unlocking unit”
            If you chose to select it that way
            , it is no longer an elite choice.

            I agree that the writing is terrible and it could have been clearer (with you are only allowed to chose a lone wolf per X), not sticking it into a FOC slot (why would it be elite anyways if the only way to get it is slotless anyways?)
            or nearly anything else.
            GWs stance on these issues is still “play as you want”

          • Asmodai

            It says you can take. Its pretty clear cut. When I was a child if my mother said to me I could take one biscuit if I cleaned my room I didn’t try to claim that a previous statement she made regarding guests been allowed to help themselves to biscuits also applied to me at that time.

          • Charon

            apples and oranges.
            Again. Try to answer the questions above.

          • Asmodai

            It really isn’t. The rule is clear in this case. Its just someone didn’t want to pay the tax and used a convoluted method to avoid doing so. Lone wolfs are an elites choices for the purposes of the rules such as controlling units but they do not take up a slot and may be taken if you have a grey hunter or wolf guard unit.

          • Simon Chatterley

            I think Charon is taking this a bit personally now so reason left the building a while ago….

          • Charon

            If they are slotless they are no longer an elite choce. So they are not elite for the purposes of the rules such as controlling units.
            Same as summoned daemons do not suddenly become standard units.

          • Muninwing

            they are still an elites choice for certain conditions, should they come up. certain missions or the like. additionally, there are no units that are no designated slot — even if they do not take up a FOC slot, they are still of that designation.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            So let’s look at your biscuit example. Your mum says you are allowed 3 biscuits a day. For each chore you do you may take a digestive biscuit, this biscuit doesn’t count towards your 3 a day. If you don’t do any chores can you take a digestive?

          • DeadlyYellow

            That is the stem of the problem: it’s a colloquial distinction.

            “Can” is interchangeable with “May.” If they used the latter term instead, there would not be this confusion.

          • Muninwing

            a lone wolf is an elite.

            you can take as many as you have unlockers.

            zero unlockers = zero lone wolves.

            the word “must” is irrelevant.

            it is still an elites choice but does not use up an elites slot in the FOC. it never does, but it always is an elite. and this is a separate constant unlinked to the first one. there is no linking or conditional language here.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            If it is an Elite Choice then it can be taken as such in any detachment. That is literally what being an Elite Choice means. You have an alternate method of selecting them. You seem to believe this either replaces or invalidates the standard way of taking them. A word like “MUST” would indicate you were correct. Do you have ANY evidence that the standard method of taking an Elite Choice is not open to Lone Wolves?

          • Muninwing

            did you read the rules?

            1. they are an elites choice, as per their entry

            2. their rule clearly states (like many others) that they do not take up an elites slot in a force organization chart. it does not say they are not elites, but instead that they are treated during listbuilding in a specific manner. but, again, it’s nothing new given how many other units do not take up this or that slot, as specifically stated in their rules.

            3. their rule clearly states that they can be taken at a rate of one for every “parent unit” (troop, wolf guard, wolf guard terminators). so while it does not say MUST, it says that you can take one for each parent.

            take no parents, you can take no LWs.

            4. i can have a cookie for every chore i complete. there are no other ways for me to get cookies. i want a cookie. i have done no chores. what happens?

            i don’t get a cookie unless i complete a chore. that’s a conclusion. the MUST you seem to think is necessary (and totally is not) is in the answer, not in the question.

          • Koonitz

            But you are forgetting one part of the analogy. “Cookie” is a dessert choice. I am allowed to select one dessert choice at the end of supper (Analogous to the ability to select 3 Elites choices).

            If I do no chores, I get no cookies. However, at the end of supper, I may select one dessert choice. Is that choice not able to be “Cookie”, as “Cookie” is a dessert choice?

          • Muninwing

            i’ll bite (no pun intended)

            at the end of supper, i may select a dessert (elites) choice.

            but if i have done no chores (added no troops or wolfguard), i cannot choose a cookie.

            logically, it does not matter that cookies are a dessert choice. because i cannot take them, since i have not achieved the means to take them. but i may take another dessert without restriction.

            the Court of the Archon is an Ice Cream sundae. you can put whatever you want on it. but, if you take it with a hamburger (archon), you can have another dessert later because it doesn’t count as a dessert, and if it is a restaurant it would come out at the same time as the burger.

            and on the shopping list, cookies are still in the dessert section. they are in the dessert aisle in the grocery store. but because of the special rules set up around cookies, the way cookies are handled are changed.

          • Koonitz

            But that’s not what I was told. I was told “You can have a cookie for each chore you complete. This does not count as your dessert choice.”

            It doesn’t say that cookies are off the menu as a dessert choice, only that if I complete a chore, I get a cookie and that cookie does not preclude me from also having dessert after supper, which may also be a cookie (because, as mentioned, cookies have not been restricted).

            Y’know, I have to buy groceries after work. I’m gonna wanna buy cookies, now.

          • Muninwing

            two rules

            rule one: you can take a cookie for each chore competed.

            rule two: cookies are not dessert, but are bought in the dessert aisle for economic (mission etc) purposes.

          • Simon Chatterley

            My rulebook states I always win. It doesn’t say that at all but I just choose to read the words that way.

            Everytime I do it people get really annoyed but I don’t know what all the fuss is about.

          • Charon

            Probably because you have nothing to back up your claim, there is no different interpretation and you try to make up a strawman because you think yourself as the only valid source of rules? Alternative would be you are “that guy”. But hey… each to his own.
            TO decided one way for all players. Players accepted the ruling.
            I guess you are just mad they all did not crawl to you asking for your clearly superior insight and opinion.

          • Simon Chatterley

            like most people I find the rules are the only valid source of rules and again like most players I find reading and understanding said rules to be the only valid way to play.

            A rule that states a unit is unlocked with another unit is very clear cut. To read that differently is what I would call cheating.

            To defend that makes you that guy, not me.

            But I am mad that no one came and asked for my superior sentence reading skills as I could have pointed that out for them in around 1 second.

          • Charon

            “A rule that states a unit is unlocked with another unit is very clear cut.”
            That is because you decide to only read a third of the rules.
            It is an elite choice (why would it be there if the only way you get it is slotless anyways?)
            And the “bonus” you get with the “unlock2 unit is it no longer needs a FOC slot.

            Players and TO in an event you did not even take part in decided otherwise. And you get on the internet to coomplain about a ruling that does not affect you in the slightest.
            Get a life…

          • Simon Chatterley

            Well the TO decided, the players found out after.

            As a knock out event there was little to be done was there.

            Now, where does one get a life? When I find it I’ll let you know 😉

          • Charon

            Seeing that a few DE players also used that ruling reguarding the court of the archon (same text) “the players found out after” is pretty much not true.

          • Muninwing

            the text is actually completely different for Court of the Archon.

            “For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.”

            for each… can… that…

            if i have one archon, i can have one court that does not take up a slot. but i can also take one not bound by this conditional, that still takes up a slot.

            if i have two archons, i can have two courts that do not take up slots, and however many i want to fill slots.

            if i have zero archons, i cannot have a court that does not take up a slot, because i need an archon to have one… but i can still take a court that uses the slot.

            this is not two rules, but one. this is one added benefit unlocked by a different unit. it is not a requirement.

          • Asmodai

            Reasons it would be there
            – Is it a scoring(ob sec) unit.
            – Sometimes missions state that victory points are awarded based on the unit slot.
            etc, etc.

          • Charon

            If it becomes slotless it loses these benefits as it is not an elite unit anymore.

          • Koszka

            Yeah, this is why you don’t see people using priests, primaries psykers, or enginseers as your HQ when using an IG CAD.

            The Dark Eldar argument isn’t a parallel one to make. The court counts as an HQ choice unless you field an Archon. People can still use a court as their HQ choice as long as an archon isn’t in tow.

          • Charon

            The text for the court is EXACTLY the same as the text for lone wolfes (which are elite) why do you think the same rules text has a different interpretation depending on the army you play?

            Also the imperial guard example is wrong, the rule text is a lot different:
            “They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection.”
            Is the reason why you cant use them as hq.

          • Koszka

            Punctuation makes the difference though when comparing the two though. Due to punctuation, Lone wolves need a troop choice in order to be fielded. They also don’t take up a elite slot ( They have a prerequisite, and they also have a limitation).

            When fielding an archon in your detachment, a court can be taken and doesn’t take up a force org slot (The wording lacks a prerequisite, so they can be taken as a choice. Archons change the a court’s force org allocation).

            With a change a punctuation the court takes up an HQ selection until an archon is used, much like how Lukas the trickster works when dealing with force org. Some Ork special characters utilize this same concept with their role in force organization.

          • Muninwing

            “For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.”

            is pretty different from

            “you can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops (etc) in your army.”

            and the separate rule “this selection does not use up a force organization slot”

            one has a link between the two, the other has two separate rules.

            one states that you have one manner of fielding the unit, the other gives you a conditional option you may choose to use instead.

            one has two unlinked sentences, the other has a single conditional sentence.

          • Charon

            Still the same. A lot of people will tell you: No Archon = no court.
            Because without an archon you cant include a court.

          • Muninwing

            but those people are stupid. i can point to the exact lines that explain how you field a court, with and without an archon.

            it’s there in the text.

            unlike the claim about the lone wolf, which is based upon the assumption that they have an option.

            the Court has an option. they can be taken as indicated. that’s cool. but…if you take an archon, they can be taken without taking up a slot.

            it’s there in the text.

            but there’s no conditionality about the LW. it has to be taken linked to a unit. and it never takes up a slot. it’s not modified by the inclusion of another unit, it is restricted by its lack.

          • Charon

            You also assume the court has an option.

            As the Lone wolf you can read it both ways. You assume your reading is correct and call the other opinion “stupid”.
            In fact we all don’t know ho it was intended. The TO ruled it, the players accepted it. And still some people scream and shout “cheater!”

          • Muninwing

            the court can only be read one way. there is an “if-then” statement.

            that means that there are two options. “if” and “if not”

            if you have an archon –> use this rule
            if you do not have an archon — > ignore this rule.

            see? zero actual debate. if people are debating this, they are not good at parsing language and aren’t understanding the rules they read. confusion happens. but there’s no justifiable debate logically.

            on the other hand, there is no if-then about the LW. there is only a “do this” rule.

            and we see these sometimes. and not all of them involve the word “only” or the word “must.”

            IG have the Commissar. exact rules: “You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot,”

            there is no “must” and no “only”

            can you take a Commissar without taking a Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad? they are, after all, HQ choices… with the same special wording, and the same not occupying a slot in the FOC.

            this is the same wording as the LW. this has never been under question. this is the issue. it is unlike the Archon’s Court, which has different phrasing.

            as soon as you can tell me how you can take a Commissar without taking a Command Squad, you can tell me how you can take a Lone Wolf without taking a WG/Troop.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Can you point to the part of the Court of the Archon rule you highlighted that talks about how you take a Court without an Archon?

          • Muninwing

            i can.

            the Retainers rule states:

            “Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.”

            for each archon… the detachment can include a court… that does not take up a slot.

            ok.

            how do you take one without an archon?

            you take it. you select it as normal. there are no restrictions on taking a court as a HQ (unlike taking a LW, where there is an explicit restriction). there’s no issue here with taking a court. the rule only changes how it is taken.

            the rules for LWs affect whether or not they may be taken. which is the primary difference, and the reason these two examples are not congruent

          • Zingbaby

            You’re banging your head against a wall here dude; no logic argument will get through and I think maybe he’s high on coke (or just lots of Mt Dew).

          • Ben_S

            The two sentences are not unlinked. The second one begins ‘This selection’ which is clearly referring to the first sentence. It wouldn’t make any sense on its own, so you can’t pretend they’re completely unlinked.

          • Muninwing

            “this selection” is not “this method of selection”

            maybe that’s the issue? is that the level of understanding that is getting muddled?

            because the first statement is non-negotiable. it is not an option. meaning that this method of selection is always in effect, therefore it is always applicable.

            there is no language to imply any choice in this matter, because of how ironclad that first sentence is. thus, if they are linked, the second is subservient to the first, and not a modifier or a choice-giver.

            it is not “if the unit is chosen in this manner, it does not take up an elites spot” — even that “if” would be a possible indicator of option.

            but “this selection” can mean one of two things
            – this unit selection (in other words, this entry as it stands and is written)
            – this method of choosing how to take a unit (in other words, “how do i put this into a list?”)

            is it a noun or a verb?

            honestly, it doesn’t matter. at first reaction it seems to, but again — the first statement explains both how it is taken, and gives the rule that is used for this entry.

          • Ben_S

            I’m not taking any stance on the correct interpretation of the rules. For the record, I think you’re probably right about the RAI, but I think Charon is right that the RAW is ambiguous (the first sentence does NOT say that this is the ONLY way to take a Lone Wolf).

            My point was that you were wrong to say the two sentences are completely unlinked Charon was also wrong to suggest that it was the exact same wording as the Court of the Archon, but I think the same issue arises anyway.

            In both cases you have a unit that appears in a normal slot (HQ or Elite). Therefore, you would ordinarily expect to be able to select it in the usual way. In both cases, there’s text saying that you can select it with something else and it’s slotless. In neither case does that text explicitly say that this is the ONLY way to take that unit, though in both cases some people read it that way.

          • Muninwing

            i get what you’re saying.

            i still cannot read the LW entry any other way. that first line explains how you take it. the lack of an “only” is irrelevant.

            it’s like saying “i can drive 30 miles for each gallon of gas i buy” doesn’t have an “only” involved, so i should be able to choose whether or not to get gas when my tank is empty. then doubling down because i only wanted to drive ten miles, not 30.

            in the instance at hand, though, it’s irrelevant. the choice was approved by a TO. the list had other problems. and the winner abdicated most of the prizes so as not to be fair. a real stand-up guy.

          • Ben_S

            The gas/driving example isn’t really an instance of the same thing.
            Here, we’re dealing with a rule which gives us a permission: you can take a LW for each unit of troops. However, we’re operating in a context where there’s already a general rule permitting you to take 0-3 units of Elites.
            If the first sentence was intended to over-ride or replace that general rule, then it should have said something to cancel it, like ‘you can only take one LW for each unit of troops’.
            Since it doesn’t say this, it’s open to the alternative reading, viz: there are two ways to take LWs – either as a regular elite choice, in accordance with the usual rules, or ‘free’ (slotless) with each unit of troops, as permitted by this statement.
            Again, I suspect you’re right about the RAI, but the RAW permits either interpretation.

          • Muninwing

            —“here, we’re dealing with a rule which gives us a permission: you can take a LW for each unit of troops. However, we’re operating in a context where there’s already a general rule permitting you to take 0-3 units of Elites.”—

            there is already a general rule that you can take x number of elites, based on the formation chosen. this is true.

            but if you can take a LW for each troop choice you have, and you have zero troop choices, you can take any elite you want EXCEPT for a LW — because you have not fulfilled the criteria.

            it’s not a replacement, it’s an addition.

            —“If the first sentence was intended to over-ride or replace that general rule, then it should have said something to cancel it, like ‘you can only take one LW for each unit of troops’.”—

            “you can buy a popsicle for a dollar” versus “you must pay me a dollar to get a popsicle” — one is permissive, one is restrictive. they say the same thing. for you to choose X, you need to meet Y criteria. no “must” needed.

            what’s more, adding a rule phrased positively but still restricting does not mean it’s not a restriction.

            RAW states that you can take one LW for each T/WG… so logically prove to me how you can take more LW than T/WG if you need one-for-one. there is no interpretation here if you actually read the statement.

            i’m sorry i’m being stubborn here, but this is one of the few ironclad straightforward rules that GW has written. there is no argument.

            that you would prefer it to be phrased in a limiting instead of permissive manner does not stop the fact that permission here is qualified by a met criteria.

          • Ben_S

            <>
            These aren’t equivalent at all.
            The first is an offer (giving me a permission to buy a popsicle) but doesn’t exclude getting one by other means. If someone else were to give me a popsicle, there would be no requirement violated.
            Whereas the second specifies that paying you is the only way to get a popsicle. Hence, it’s equivalent to ‘to have a popsicle, then I must pay you $1’.

          • Muninwing

            TL;DR:

            if you can take one LW for each troop choice, then tell me how you can take one without taking a troop. the word “must” that you insist needs to be there does not need to be there.

            just explain how you can meet that rule, and this conversation is over.

            if you cannot, explain where it states that the rule is optional. the Court of the Archon has a optionality to it — an if/then. point to the rule that explains how it may be broken or overruled.

          • Ben_S

            You’re assuming that the first sentence specifies the only way to take a LW, even though it doesn’t say so.
            My claim is, in effect, that there’s a legitimate reading of the RAW according to which sentence gives you a permission to take the LW in an unusual way, on top of the general permission to take it in the usual way. Hence, there’s no restrictive rule that has to be met.
            Your challenge to show how this restriction is met works only on the assumption that it is a restriction, which already assumes that your reading is the only legitimate one. Your reading may be right, but an argument that already assumes that isn’t any independent support for it.
            I don’t see why you think this case is so different from the Court case. I grant the phrasing is different, but there’s no ‘if/then’ in the Court. For the record, do you think the Court case is ambiguous? Or do you think that both rules are unambiguous?

          • Muninwing

            can you take a Commissar without taking a Command Squad?

            explain how.

            they have the same rules. and there’s never been any question on that one.

            the Archon’s Court is actually completely different. there is an if/then statement involved. it says that if you take an archon, then you don’t have to use a slot for the court. it’s phrased differently, and it’s run differently.

          • Ben_S

            I don’t have either the IG or DE books, so have no idea what the wording is there, but I think it was you who quoted the Court rules above. There was no ‘if’ or ‘then’ in what was quoted.

            The Court says ‘for each Archon, you can include one Court’.

            The LW says ‘you can include one LW for each troops choice’.

            The order of the words is different, but the underlying logic is the same. Compare:

            1) ‘If it rains, you’ll get wet’
            2) ‘You’ll get wet if it rains’

            Both statements mean the same thing.

          • Muninwing

            statement 1: lone wolf
            statement 2: Commissar
            statement 3: Court of the Archon

            you are asserting that 1 and 3 are the exact same.

            i am asserting that 1 and 2 are exactly worded, 2 has never been otherwise interpreted, and 3 is completely unlike the others.

            so let’s see.

            1: you can take one lone wolf for each troops choice or unit of wolf guard or wolf guard terminators in your army. this selection does not use up a force organization slot.

            2: You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection.

            3: Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

            observe.

            you (may/can) (take/include) one (lone wolf/commissar) for (each/every) (qualifying unit). (they/this selection) (do/does) not (take/use) up a force organization slot.

            the Court does not say this. it says:
            For each (x), (it) can include a (y) that (doesn’t take up a slot).

            not addressing any changes to taking y without x, which means it occurs without restriction. the “for each… you can…” doesn’t even mean that taking the Court in this context is mandatory — you “can” also means “you choose whether or not to do so”

            meaning that from the beginning, Charon had the court example in his head, assumed that the wording was the same, then angrily defended this false assumption time and time again rather than bother to check, even when the rules were copy-pasted side by side for his benefit.

            i’m going to assume that he and the other one are just trolls having their annoying fun. you at least have been reasonable.

          • Muninwing

            both are 100% unambiguous. to the point why i do not understand why people are confused by the archon thing. like, at all. it’s a HQ. but it’s an HW that gets modified by another HQ. it’s really clear in the wording that it operates normally up until a condition is met, then gains a special.

            it would be like if Ravenwing bikers gained Skilled Rider if they had 6 bikes plus an attack bike in the unit. if you don’t meet the criteria (having an archon) then you don’t get the special rule (the court as a free slot)

            on the LW front, i’m arguing effect here and you’re arguing cause.

            i’m not stating that there’s more than one way to take a LW. i’m just assuming that a rule that has no wording implying conditionality or temporariness is always in effect.

            the rule states that you can take one A for each B.

            the effect of this is that you cannot take an A if you have no B. but that’s the effect of a rule that — as i said — there’s no indication that it ever turns off. the effect of that rule being always applicable when you choose to use a LW (choosing/selecting the unit) is that there is only one way to field them.

          • Ben_S

            “i’m not stating that there’s more than one way to take a LW.”

            I know that – that’s the position you’re arguing against.

            “the rule states that you can take one A for each B.

            the effect of this is that you cannot take an A if you have no B.”

            This is the problem. Where does it say you cannot take an A if you have no B? That’s simply an assumption on your part.

            Being told that you can take an A for each B doesn’t mean that you cannot take As without Bs if allowed by some other rule.

            I’m not saying anything about ‘turning off’ a restriction. I’m saying this isn’t a restriction.

          • Muninwing

            it’s not an assumption.

            if you can take one square for each triangle, and you have no triangles, then you have not ability to take any squares.

            that’s really not hard.

            and this idea that “well, i can take it because it’s an elites choice in my army” — it’s restricted right there based on how many unlocking units you take.

            so unless that rule is optional, or somehow does not apply, it is always on.

            if it is always on, it’s not a choice. you cannot choose to not obey that rule.

            you are insisting (and i wonder if it is about that “selection” query above) that the second statement makes it a optional rule — that if you choose to use this rule then it does not take up a FOC slot, but if taken without this rule active, then it is just treated like an elites choice.

            ask any Guard players. this has never been an issue with Commissars. you can take one for each command squad. boom. no “i can take one without a command squad but it uses a HQ slot” argument. no. you can take one for each means you are ONLY permitted one for each.

            i asked four people the same question today: a history teacher, a math and logic teacher, a rhetoric teacher, and my wife (who is as pretty as she is smart). all same back with the same answer — the first rule of LWs is restrictive and always in effect.

            “for each A you can take one B” means that to take one B you need one or more A. and unless that rule is ignored or somehow turned off, it is in effect whenever you select to use that entry/selection for your army. because they are separate sentences, each one is a separate rule.

          • Muninwing

            no.

            it is still an elite unit.

            the conditional is just for allowed units in a FOC.

          • Muninwing

            and this happens because of what rule? cite please?

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Hilarious

          • Muninwing

            there’s zero conditionality about either statement. both are rules. they are not options, nor optional. there’s no if-then. they are always in effect as-is. without an “if-then” or any sort of conditional statement, there is actually only one way of reading this without equivocation or outright rules abuse.

            the problem with your logic is that you are implying that the “you can take one lone wolf for each troop choice etc in your army” is optional, when it is a rule clearly stated. there does not need to be an “only” here for the restriction to apply — the restriction occurs in the parity, and if you don’t have parity you are breaking the rule.

            it says: “you may take one lone wolf for each troop choice or unit of wolf guard or wolf guard terminators in your army.”

            that’s a rule. it’s a statement. if you do not have at least one qualifying parent unit (WG/troops) per Lone Wolf, you have broken that rule. there is zero indication that this rule interacts with any other statements.

            “for each A, you can take a B” is pretty easy and streamlined to follow. it’s also pretty ironclad.

            it reads the same as “you may only take a B for each A.” but missing the “only” doesn’t actually change the explicit parity and the explicit requirement.

            and does not read as “if you have an A, you may instead take a B under these conditions”

            look at WHF, Beastmen book, ambushing. that was far ore ambiguously worded and had no references to parity, but was FAQed to mean that for each ambusher you must have a separate similar unit on the board (instead of one unit and many ambushers).

            i am curious… if there are other examples where similarly-phrased rules were retconned/FAQed/corrected into another form, could you provide an example? if they have made precedent, then i’d argue that the precedent stands. but it would have to be just like this one, or no dice. so if you can find an example, i’d love to look at those and i’d gladly take back everything i’ve stated here. that would be the fault of bad writing though — there’s still no indication here that you aren’t breaking a rule by running this in this manner.

            for now, i’ll reaffirm that there is one way of taking this slot. it counts as an elite for scoring, specific mission, whatever purposes, but it can only be taken when you have a troop/wolfguard choice. there’s also no conditionality on the second sentence. it never takes up a slot. it just is. otherwise, there’d be an “if” involved. it’s not. it’s not “you can take one if” or an “if you have a troop etc choice you may take…”

            while you are right — that it’s a TO or an individual’s choice (i’ll be honest, i’d play against them anyway), it is a bending of the rules as written. in a game that had decent internal and external balances, this could be used to imply that they didn’t deserve the victory because they had to bend/break the rules on a technicality in order to do so. it goes to reputation and validity, and that changes how others read the situation and treat the victor.

            had i played SW and not taken LWs because i was upholding the rules, it could be implied (though weakly) that the victor had used an unfair advantage to succeed where others had not.

          • Charon

            i am curious… if there are other examples where similarly-phrased rules were retconned/FAQed/corrected into another form, could you provide an example?

            I can oly say (again) that the wording is exactly the same for DE court of the archon, that it is played exactly the same in every big tournament and GWs stance is “play as you see fit” to this issue.

            Even then if we would totally disagree, the actual rule reads “for each troops in your army”. Not “in this detachment” nor “Codex: Space Wolves Troops”.

          • euansmith

            “Well, you’re not reading it right!”

          • Charon

            It is only “clear” if you decide to quote 1/3 of the actual rules.
            You left out the point where it is an elite chice per FOC and the point where it explains: “This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.”
            The other selection (as an Elite) does use up a Force Organisation slot. 😉

          • Simon Chatterley

            But you are conveniently forgetting that it is 1/3 of the rule. This being the rather obvious one which states you must take a troop choice to unlock it the lone wolf in the first place.

            So in your own admission you are only reading 2/3rds of the rule and applying it in your favour.

          • Charon

            You think this is the obvious one, I think ELITE CHOICE is the obvious one, and the obvious 3rd one explaining your “obvious” second one further.
            You follow 1/3, I follow all 3.
            1) Elite choice.
            2) you CAN pick one per troop
            3) it then becomes slotless.
            otherwise go to 1)

          • Simon Chatterley

            2 is where you your flow chart ends unless you have a troop to move onto 3.

            Anything else is abusing both the rules and English.

            But I didn’t do it so I can sleep well tonight.

            I’m not the guy who cheated to win a tournament.

          • Charon

            No it does not stop there. It doesnt say “you are only allowed to” or anything els that would deny you from picking it as elite. It says you can pick one per troop and in this case: 3

          • Wulfen73

            I am not certain I agree on this regard, and I know that you have been in the midst of kind of a flame war so please understand, this isn’t an attack on you, its just my own thoughts.

            I get they are in the elites section, but from my reading of the RAW it says that we may take 1 lone wolf for each unit of whatever and if it kept going or had a comma I would agree with your reading of it.

            However we have a period, new sentence this would indicate this is a new statement “This selection does not use up a force organization slot”

            The structure of the paragraph suggests that these are two separate statements, otherwise it should be a comma and not a period.

            You could be correct and the intent of the writers is as you say, but I can only read what was written in the way it was written.

            Did the guy cheat? Don’t know.. honestly don’t care, he had the TO’s okay and that’s really what it falls to for a player, TO has final say. Did the TO do wrong? well, his reading of them would seem to be wrong to be but I don’t consider doing what you think is correct as a wrong in this regard.

          • Charon

            We can disagree, there is no problem in that.
            The issue only arises if a few people call the list “illegal” (which, as you pointed out is not the case as the TO agreed) and if the same people continue to rant about how their interpreteation is the only one that matters.
            I can see both sides adn unitl there is an official FAQ it will remain something you and your opponent have to agree on.
            So like in the first post… I really dont see whats all the fuss about.

          • Wulfen73

            I try not to get involved in rules debates, too many people have some sort of personal investment and get mad.

            Besides, its 40K, a barely structured game at this point, you may as well get mad over a Munchkin tournament going awry.

          • Charon

            Totally agree.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Where does it state you must take a Troops choice? If you can’t understand the rules maybe the biscuit example from above will help you understand:

            Your mum says you are allowed 3 biscuits a day. For each chore you do you may take a digestive biscuit, this biscuit doesn’t count towards your 3 a day. If you don’t do any chores can you take a digestive?

          • Simon Chatterley

            It states it in the unit rules. Unless you can’t read English.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Cool where exactly in English in those rules does it say you must take a Troops choice or WG unit? It says you can as an option and that doing so makes the Lone Wolf not take up a slot. But not seeing the word must ANYWHERE?

          • euansmith

            I can see why you might read it that way; and the reason is, GW are terrible at writing codices.

          • Charon

            I have no issue with that.
            It is easy to communicate this before a game. I can see both sides of the argument.
            What I can not see though is why people are so adamant that the list is illegal when the TO said: it is ok.
            That is like complaining as a viewer of street basketball (not even a player!) that they do not follow the official rules.

          • euansmith

            Apparently he is 1pt over the 1850pt limit 😉

          • Charon

            Which was penalized by disallowing the unit at the final table. So a 120…. sorry…. 121 points disadvantage.
            Basically for a weapon he didn’t even use as he swapped it for another weapon. It is one of these glorious instances where you need to buy a weapon only to swap it for another weapon as you are only allowed to swap weapons.
            The same with Eldar autarchs. You need to buy a chainswoard first in order to equip him with another melee weapon as he has no weapons and he is only allowed to Swap your melee weapon for X.

          • grossedent

            AAAAAAAAAH thank you charon,

            you are the reason that made me sick of this game,

            because of the rules, and people using them !
            It’s incredible to see how ridiculous you are !
            I don’t understand why this list can be approved, you have FIVE formation, all of them are different and don’t come from the same book. It’s such a pity to see how pathetic this game has become with the 6th and the 7th edition
            Now, W40k is becoming a mix between w40k, forgeworld, 30k, betrayl at calth, deathwatch etc…
            There is no sense anymore is this game, GW just want to sell models and they succeded to seduce you to play more and more armies with stupid alliances, with 3-4 (or more like this) formations
            Before the game was simple !

            It was 1-2 QG, 2-6 troups and 3 elite, fast and heavy slot
            It was cool, now ! everyone can do anything, and do anything.

            Charon, if you were less stupid, you would read the rule for the lone wolf as : it doesn’t take a slot if SW TROUPS or termi or wolf guard are taken and not is any troups from anywhere
            BECAUSE ! it’s a rule for an army using the old rules of FOC, AND it’s a rule from the SW codex !!!

            But i don’t care, I stopped this game, and it’s the best thing I ever did (and begin xwing which is a better game that this poor game)

          • Charon

            Good riddance 🙂

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            You realise the SW codex was released in 7th Ed right? You realise that Charon is simply advising following the rules as clearly laid out?

            GW has opened the game out to allow freedom. You can include whatever models you want in your army. I don’t see how that is a remotely bad thing. Yes super friends lists are dumb. Yes the Allies rules need to change.

          • Zingbaby

            Charon feels that a toy-game company’s “loose” rules justifies him being able to make the most jerk-lists possible, and it’s ok.

            In the US we don’t have any laws to keep you from being a jerk, so it’s all fine.

          • Charon

            That is probably why you are still allowed to post here.
            The interesting fact is… I dont even play Space Puppies 😀

          • grim_dork

            Incidentally, that’s not an interesting fact.

          • Charon

            Should be… I imagine it is hard for me to build jerky space wolves lists without playing space wolves.
            But hey… trolls gonna troll.

          • ClownBabyROK

            I thought it was pretty interesting. I was able to go about my daily life at peace after reading that.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Going to a Tournament absolutely justifies making the most effective list you can. That is literally the entire point of going to tournaments. Calling them Here lists just illustrates you are TFG by attacking people for having a different type of fun to you. I don’t enjoy playing golf. I don’t attack people who do because they spend their time doing something good they enjoy. I don’t really enjoy casual narrative play either. I don’t ever attack people for playing that way. Why do you feel the need to attack people?

          • Zingbaby

            Are seriously trying to argue that bringing a cherry-picked WAAC _ILLEGAL_ list to a tournament is “fun” for everyone because “it’s a tournament”?

            No no no… don’t worry, that’s not ridiculous.

          • Charon

            The list is legal for this tornament, the rules were the same for all people. It was 184 players, EVERYONE of them with “a cherry-picked WAAC list”. So why do you think they had no fun? because there was ONE winner and you dont like his list? I bet you would not like the list from the guys ending up on the last places either as they are all similar.
            So what exactly is your point? That your narrow mindset does not allow you to understand that there are people that actually ENJOY this kind of game?

          • Zingbaby

            Oh yeah, my narrow mindset doesn’t allow me to see that the LOUDEST and most consistently miserable group of gamers “ENJOY”s this kind of game. Weird that.

          • Charon

            Does that make you a tournament gamer?
            You are loud, complaining everytime someone dares to have badwrongfun, you are constantly miserable adhominem attacking other people and In have never seen a single post from you that is neiter complaining about other peoples opinion, playstyle,… or not attacking other people as primitive as possible.

            So no.. I guess the tornament scene doesnt want to be like you.

          • Zingbaby

            You only see what you want to see huh?

            It’s funny that the very next 40K article on the big “tournament blog – BOLS” is… are you ready for it…

            “How to Fix Tournaments”.

            But no everything is fine, it’s just me I guess.

          • Charon

            And if you actually read it (I know thats hard when just reading the headline is enough) you would see that is not only another goatboy article (which I whish would just disappear but hey… freedom of speech) but also that it is not about the rules but about player orginisational responsibilites and TO responsibilites.
            I rest my case.

          • Zingbaby

            Ha what? …you “rest your case” with the evidence that disproves it? …Ok guy.

            I guess it’s just me, and Goatboy, apparently.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            He rests his case largely because he’s pointed out the loud ones complaining are you and Shinwan8 and largely guys who aren’t competitive players… Then he pointed out who that article was by and its actual content…

          • Zingbaby

            Oh Ok, so this is your first day on the internet?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Nope. Hence I’ve repeatedly seen vitriol on the Internet about the hobby and almost all of it from casual gamers complaining that competitive gamers are having the wrong fun.

          • Muninwing

            actually… it was illegal. but for other reasons. over points, etc. the LW was included after getting TO approval, so that’s legal regardless of the reading comprehension of the individual arguing the point. but he didn’t pay points for certain options and was over-points (admittedly one point), so even that would be breaking a rule.

            that’s why the winner abdicated most of his winnings, to avoid scandal.

            say what you want, but that’s a real class act. a great sport.

          • Median Trace

            Didn’t he also go over points too? Special Email, over points, seems like that is a little more than making an “effective list”.

          • Charon

            He was one point over, that was beeing penalized by not allowing him to field the 120 point unit.

          • Median Trace

            After how many games? I’m sure they caught it at the beginning of game #1 right?

          • Charon

            Im not even sure you are aware what caused the issue.
            An oversight is hardly “cheating” most army builder dont even recognize this issue and if I told you you probably still would not see the problem at the first glance.
            Look at the Sanguine priest, look at his equipment. He forgot to pay 1 point for a bolt pistol, the model doesnt even have. You know why?

          • Median Trace

            He was over points. My knowledge of the rules doesn’t change that in the slightest.

          • Charon

            And he was penalized. So what is your point?
            Also it is assumed it was an oversight, which is highly probably as the TO did not notice, his opponents did not notice ans a lot of army builders also dont notice.
            Even more backed up by the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, so you would not have seen it either.

            So again… where does your vitriol come from?

          • Median Trace

            Vitriol? I have posted a few times questioning the list posted on here? This affects my decisions to participate in events like this if it employs questionable results and decisions. I hope your stocks in Adepticon Ltd. don’t go down as a result of this. You seem to have a vested interest in the results given that you have posted 100 times in this single thread.

          • euansmith

            Hi, I’m euansmith, Charon is higher up this thread 😀

            I agree with you on the FOC; the old way kept things from going too loony. I can see why GW have gone down this route of kaleidoscopic list building, as it pretty much forces you to buy every Codex they release. However, the old one gave the game structure and at least some semblance of military respectability.

            As it is, the current method is like saying, “We’re going to attack this town, we’ll send a company of Indonesian Mountain Troops with support from a squadron of Malaysian tanks and close air support from the New Guinean Air Force. What do you mean, none of you trust each other?”

            Calls for Allies in the past revolved around fluffy things like Genestealer Cults or Chaos Marines allied with Imperial Guard; this could have been addressed with some specific lists.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Hilarious 🙂 side note though, in real life I have been in that situation serving alongside other countries troops we didn’t trust.

          • euansmith

            In the book of Black hawk Down there is a bit about the Americans trying to convince the Malaysians to lend them their transports; just like those Astartes Battle Brothers are doing all the time.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Yep 😉

      • Keith Wilson

        this issue aside was not his list 1pt over ? …. if so that is a clear issue and his victories must all be declared null and void

        • Charon

          Yes and he was penalized by not beeing allowed to use the 120 points unit.
          You can ask yourself if the oversight of not having paid one point for a weapon that is not used in the list (because no model actually has the weapon he did not pay for) was an oversight or calculated and if not paying one poit for a waepon not in the list and not actually equipped is worth llosing 120 points.

          And even IF the victories were null and void. The next list was multiple WK and scatterbikes and you guys would have the same discussion about a horrible cheese list and a terrible jerk player.

    • PinkyandtheBrain

      Nope. The Sanguiniary Priest was the only illegal thing.

      • Simon Chatterley

        Well, can agree to disagree on it being the only illegal thing.

        But we can both agree it was illegal.

        • PinkyandtheBrain

          Yes it was. But to disagree with the rules about whether something is legal is contrary to say the least.

    • Andrew Thomas

      Wrong, you can take them as an Elites choice without taking Troops or Wolf Guard. There is no “only” in their Dataslate entry. See also: Command Squads, Court of the Archon, Rhinos/Razorbacks/Drop Pods. Commisars don’t count toward this discussion, because they have to be added to units.

  • benn grimm

    I think if the current meta was knocked on the head and piled up in a big heap, then fired into the sun, 40k tourneys would be a lot of fun again.

    • Charon

      That would either need nerfing Space Marines, Tau, Necron, eldar, Knights and Mechanicum into the ground. Or buffing the rest to the same level. and as we can see with BL and CS supplements in comparison to the astartes bokk, neither is likely gonna happen.

      • benn grimm

        Marines were/are pretty fine without formations etc, same for Tau, Crons and possibly/probably Ad Mech. Eldar would need actual nerfs to the actual book; I agree that’s pretty unlikely, though fingers crossed for the next book.

        • Muninwing

          nerfing D and Grav would actually do most of it…

          • benn grimm

            If they could nerf D, so it literally did the exact same thing as old distortion cannons/wraithcannons etc, it would be fine. Grav is just too available/cheap to exist in its current form; maybe make it like graviton guns in 30k or something?

          • Erik Setzer

            Nerfing D AGAIN would be ridiculous. Changing the weapons from being D would be better. D weapons were designed for Apoc, huge games involving big models going at it. Problem is, some bean counter figured out they could be selling more big models if they let people use them in all of their 40K games, so now we have D weapons running amok.

            I agree on the formations issue, but that’s just getting increasingly worse as time goes on, so don’t expect it to get better.

            I’d also suggest changing the way allies work would be a great idea. No ICs joining allied units. Just take that out. It was a problem with the old Eldar/Dark Eldar mixes, it’s now a huge problem with Imperials having so many armies that are BB with each other, allowing you to put models from five different armies into a single unit, which is just frankly an absurd scenario that shouldn’t be possible.

            I won’t blame the player for using the system he’s given. GW has to know there’s problems like this going on, but they’re doubling down and adding more problems, and their line will be to blame the player for playing the game they created, not them for creating said game (and hardcore GW-is-always-right people will claim that’s true and tourney players are bad). Eventually the “fix” will be to just wipe out points and pretty much everything else and tell us that we’re being given a “framework” and can build our own game…

          • An_Enemy

            The game is exactly how GW wants it to be. I spoke to a NA regional manager once. He said that GW’s ideal was for any player to take any model and put it in any army

            A Space Wolf player asked about Eldar jet bikes.

            Dude said yeah. If you want Eldar Jetbikes in your space wolf army then make up a story, or not, and they’re Fenrisian Eldar with Battle Brothers status.

        • Charon

          They are not. Grav is not fine at all. ATSKNF is not fine and in comparison to CSM even a tactical marine is a lot better.

          • benn grimm

            I guess I should have added ‘in my experience’; and truth be told, i mostly play against Marines with Daemons, so grav isn’t a big deal for me. Lots of free rhinos/guns/rules is much worse from my perspective.

          • Charon

            I dont think paying 30 points for protective equipment only to make your DP easier to wound while ignoring the protective part of the equipment is “not a big deal”.
            The issue with grav is basically that it bypasses 2 defence mechanisms (only 1 for all all other weapons) AND makes models that have paid points for protection not only defenseless but also turns the protection against you making you.

          • benn grimm

            For me its not a big deal, because I just don’t take one item of wargear and have 30pts to spend on other things. Its far from an auto-include (imo) anyway. Aside from that you’re preaching to the converted, i’m not a big fan of grav in its current form either.

          • Koonitz

            I am a core Codex: Space Marine player. Even I hate grav weapons. I almost never take them, even though I have modeled them on two separate ‘prime’ choices (I have 3 CentDevs, and a mounted command squad with 3 Gravguns.).

            I do like formations. I like how they allow you the option of building lists you might have otherwise never been able to do, without having to convince your opponent that unbound is okay and acceptable. However, I agree that there are “Haves” and “Have Nots” in the formation field, as there are with units.

            These are my two suggestions to help reign in the problems people see.

            1) All battle brothers are treated as Allies of Convenience.

            2) Formations are allowed, however ALL formation benefits are replaced with the same benefits of a CAD. The only benefit of formations is that you can build a fluffy/themed list or may ally in other armies a little easier than using an Allied Detachment.

            Beyond that, individual army balance would be appreciated (the afor-mentioned nerf to Eldar availability of D-weapons and Marine’s Grav).

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Tactical marines are awful though yes CSMs and DE Wyches are worse. But that is it. Allies needs fixing, no sharing transports no sharing ICs. Librarius and Skyhammer need to go away.

            ATSKNF is largely fine but too prevalent on codex marines should have it. (Stubborn for DA, Fearless for BAs and Wolves).

            TOs need to be less reactive with their rules changes (complaining about invis then making people successfully roll to hit with Psychic Shriek). Then embrace Maelstrom more which would help a lot.

    • euansmith

      Removing Battle Brothers would be a help.

    • Zingbaby

      I feel like even in a chess match the guy that made this list would be obnoxious to play against, metas, tournies whatever…

      Hey can I take the best units from each codex? Ok, have “fun” everyone else.

      • Charon

        Everyone else has as they are on the same page taking the best units from multiple sources.
        I would understand your spite in a friedly game, but in a tournament?
        There were also narrative and campaign events running at the same time with different lists.
        Is this one of these badwroingfun posts again where some guy on the internet thinks he is in a position to tell other people how they should have fun?

        • Zingbaby

          Well your rant was barely intelligible… but you’re saying, as some sort of authority on fun, that this guys list was “fun” for everyone at the tournament?

          • Charon

            If they did not want to play gainst these lists they would not have made them themselves and not played in a tornament where these lists are the norm. Or do you think the all scatterbike and Wraithknight guy had tons of fun against the other all warpsiders and Wraithknights guy but no fun against the superfriends because of… reasons?

          • Zingbaby

            I would not consider Wraithknight spam fun either personally… but you are the alleged authority on fun.

            Step 2 – if blatant jerk-lists are the “norm” at tournaments does it shock you that folks think the tournament scene has poisoned the game community?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            How and why would you come to that conclusion? People playing competitively play with competitive lists. Why does that make them Jerks? How does that poison the community?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            He’s saying that the people that have fun by playing with and against power lists are the people that should attend tournaments. If you don’t enjoy that type of play don’t go to tournaments. And if you don’t go to tournaments what right do you have to label the fun that people have at tournaments as bad or wrong?

          • Koonitz

            I think the issue is that some people play in metas where even casual gaming at the FLGS tends to be dominated by those who play competitive “Jerk” lists (probably because they’re practicing for the next tournament).

            If Joe Blow wants to go have a friendly pick-up game with a casual list, he’s going to get demolished. This will, in turn, discourage him from going to play and, potentially, drive him from the hobby. Or, possibly force him to begin acting in the same fashion, building competitive lists (which may also discourage him, as he may not enjoy playing in this fashion).

            From Joe Blow’s perspective, yes, the community is being poisoned by this mindset.

            Personally, I can’t stand the competitive mind-set of trying to break the game for advantage. To each their own, but I’ve never been that kind of competitive player and I refuse to attend tournaments for that reason. Fortunately, I’m blessed with a local meta that is largely casual (the hugely competitive players have long since been pulled away by WarMachine, bless it’s rules for taking them away).

            If I were playing in a competitive meta, I very likely wouldn’t be as involved in this hobby (or, involved at all, to be honest, as I wouldn’t want to play).

          • Charon

            You can’t practice for a tournament by steamrolling fluff lists.
            That is the same as if somebody claims he prepares for the marathon by not using the remote control.

            “Jerks” do exist without tournaments. They always have and they always will. Nobody is pointing a gun at you and shouts “play the jerk! Go! You are not allowed to refuse!” (they also exist in AOS… which cant be possible according to this logic)

            It is also interesting that these “horror” scenarios are always 2nd hand knowledge with the sentence “Not in my gaming group… but…”

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            That is a communication issue. A competitive player shouldn’t be playing a new guy to test his list as that isn’t testing his list. Nor should he be using his list in casual games unless he is being totally up front about it. So either he is in which case if you don’t have a competitive list then it is your fault for agreeing to the game. Or he lied in which case he is a TFG and should be shunned for his actions and you know not to play him again and can warn other casual gamers.

            I personally don’t understand the attitude that you shouldn’t try to win a game you are playing. Or that trying to win the game during list building is inherently a more immoral act than waiting until deployment or is deploying well also a Jerk move? At what point in the game is it OK to try to win fairly? At what point in the game is trying to win fairly considered reprehensible?

          • Koonitz

            Perhaps I should not have commented that “probably because they’re practicing for the next tournament”. What if that’s the meta? The meta is full of WAAC gamers, whether they’re practicing for a tournament, or they just learned (because they played in this kind of meta) that this is the way you play? *looks accusingly towards professional, competitive sports*

            You’re absolutely right that it is a communication issue. But, if the general concensus is “play this way”, what choice does the casual player have? It is also an understanding issue. You might even ask your opponent to play a more casual list. But what if he doesn’t have the same idea of “casual” as you? What if he thinks his netlisted scatterbike/wraithknight list is perfectly fine in a casual environment? What if the entire local meta thinks that way?

            My experiences aren’t wholly 2nd hand, either, as Charon seems to comment. I have experienced this mindset, and I still see it in many other environments, which is why, not only will I avoid tournaments (which is a decision I came to from personal experience, even so far back as 3rd/4th edition, when I started playing), I will also avoid almost every even remotely competitive multiplayer video game ever conceived.

            But those are personal choices. I don’t fault others for playing this way. You’re certainly entitled to it, but if it dramatically affects my ability to play, I can, and will, have an opinion on that.

          • Charon

            If your meta is full of WAAC players that it is clear that YOU do not fit in the meta. The other people are obviously fine with this way.
            I dont know it is like going to a steak house, finding out steak is not your thing and wanting everybody else in the restaurant to order spaghetti with you.
            Competitive is coming big. That is sad for you but there are a lot of people who enjoy it.
            For me playing a video game against the AI is extremely boring. I enjoy the story mode like everybody else, but if it doesnt have a good multiplayer the game is back on the shelf. I already know the story. There is nothing more appeal to it.
            Games with a good multiplayer may see years of play.

          • Koonitz

            You’re very right, which is why I said if that was the meta I played in, I wouldn’t be as involved in this hobby as I would have left long ago. I don’t belong. But that’s one less player involved in the hobby. It’s a clique thing, at that point, where these competitive players often drive away people who would otherwise enjoy the hobby. It’s why a game like EvE-Online has subscriptions measured in the hundreds of thousands in its prime, where WoW has subscriptions measured in millions, even though it is waning. But, some people like their hundreds of thousands.

            However, as I also said, I’d have an opinion on that (which I definitely do with EvE-Online, as my friends are attempting to get me to play it again), which is where I’m sure many people who have commented here are coming from.

            To use your analogy, what if we all went to a steak house and I’m a vegetarian? What if I told you I’m a vegetarian and I’m not interested in going out to the steak house? What if every time we go out for supper as friends, you NEVER take my opinion into consideration and the group always goes out to the steak house? Then you wonder why I never join the group for supper. Perhaps, sometimes, we should go to the Italian Pasta place and order spaghetti together (you can even add meatballs if it makes you feel better).

            That’s where many of these people’s comments are coming from and why so many people think the competitive meta is causing harm. I do think a lot of them do have to take the fact that it isn’t their meta into consideration and that they do have to put a little effort into communication and understanding to get the games they enjoy.

          • Charon

            The difference in EVE and WoW is that sandbox lost a lot of popularity. If the game has no one telling you “DO THIS!” they dont bother. UO was extremely successful at its time and so was DAOC and Everquest.
            WOW was one of the first themeparks.
            Also note that no other themepark was as successful and that WOW subs went down after they were opening high end dungeons for everyone. The addon with the most players was burning crusade, the hardest expansion they made.

            Your friends only gio to the steak hous dont asking you about your opinion? Tell them. If they stillr efuse dont eat with them.

            I mena come on. I sit in Austria. An extremely small country next to germany. With an extremely small capital city. And even there I can name you at least 20 gaming groups, 4 stores and about 5 hobby clubs (that I know of) where you can play 40k and these are not the same people.
            So I really dont see a problem if I do not like the meta in one club? I try another. I can still stay freinds with the people or play different games.

    • nurglitch

      The popularity of the constructed format leaves something to be desired, I’ll grant you that.

    • standardleft

      Get rid of points?

      • Muninwing

        hahaha…

  • Scarloochiw

    Wonder how much in $USD does that list cost to construct?

  • kevinharoun

    Personally, I’m tired of “It’s a superfriends list”. It tells me nothing. Jargon for the sake of jargon.

    • mugginns

      ^^^ This is the worst thing, you’re right

    • Muninwing

      ok… it was every brand of marine somehow working in tandem.

      but not ones form the Space Marine codex, because they would have lost their rules. just others, to take advantage of stacking extras.

  • wibbling

    It looks like an army list without consideration of the fluff, concepts or themes of the armies involved deployed solely to ‘win games’.

    Why bother playing 40K? At that point you may as well field tokens and game from a spreadsheet.

    • Charon

      Propbaly because people have fun playing it that way?
      I know it is hard for people who think their playstyles only way to play entertaining games and all other just have BADWRONGFUN but… really?

      • Median Trace

        If the end result is cheating the rules in order to min/max, doesn’t sound like an entertaining game.

        • Charon

          Where do you see cheating?

          • Median Trace

            He was over points right? And a special secret “his eyes only” email seems hardly on the up and up.

          • Charon

            It is hardly his eyes only when the TO has an emali adress for FAQ where everyone may send in questions.
            Also it is hardly his eyes only when every instance of this was ruled the same for everyone.
            He was ONE point over, for a weapon that wasnt even on the list and was not beeing used because the model didnt have the weapon actually equipped.
            I checked 3 army building programs and every one of these forgot the extra point.
            I also hardly call that “cheating”
            Im pretty sure the exact same thing would happen to you if you build an Eldar autarch or a sanguinary priest.

          • Median Trace

            If it is so common a problem, how many other people did this happen with? This is the first time I have heard of it happening.

            It is clearly a contested rule given the disagreements on the Internet. Sure, anyone could have asked. But how many people didn’t because they thought it was explicitly disallowed.

            Maybe “cheat” is too strong a word. But that is two question marks in one list. So whatever.

          • Charon

            It happens basically to everyone in every game. You have not heard about it because only a few people know and even less people care. How often did you play your friend and someone was asking if it is ok to have 3 points over?
            I never refused to play somebody because it was 1503 points instead of 1500.

            The internet is the internet and not the participnts on the tournament. There are a lot of cases where RAW contradict RAI or a rule is not clear (that is why GW used to do FAQs). People attending do know their rules. They know that some rules are open to interpretation, so they ask beforehand.
            The NEVER just assume. If you just ASSUME you run risk your list fails or is illegal.
            If you go to ITC with a list based on D-Weapons and invisibility without reading their FAQ or asking them about rules you will find out that your army is not working as they modified both.
            So, if you want to play it that was you WILL ask. There is no way that one of the top players “forgot” asking about a vital part of his list building and just randomly “assumed” stuff.

            So. The problem is:
            In order to buy a weapon on the priest you have to swap a weapon for it. Just buying fist and claw is not possible (it is for basically any other model). You have to buy the claw and trade your cc weapon in for it. Then you have to buy a bolt pistol an cross it from your list again in order to swap it for the power fist.

            Same for Eldar. Their artefacts replace a weapon. So in order for an Autarch to have a shard of anaris and a shuriken pistol, he has to buy a scorpion chainsword and then swap it for the shard, paying 3 points more.
            I have never seen any Eldar player doing that 😀

          • Median Trace

            So people going to these tournaments “know their rules” except for the rule about weapon swapping.

            Honestly, if the rule for being over any amount of points was an automatic DQ. I bet people would be far more vigilant about checking their lists.

          • Charon

            And even with double checking and checking by the TO it slipped through.
            Maybe you are perfect tough internet guy but mistakes can happen.

          • Median Trace

            “Small details are often the most important, this weekend being a particularly potent example. The breakdown in process was that lists were not double checked prior to play beginning on Friday. I did not ensure that this key step was completed.”

            I guess it wasn’t checked. I don’t know the guy so I can’t say if it was intentional or not. But there were at least two question marks with his list. Not too mention the question about play with the cover issue I had forgotten about.

            This strikes me as odd given the size of the event. This could be just a fluke occurrence though. But it will be something I keep any eye on in the future.

            Internet Tough Guy? Maybe Johnny Glasshouse shouldn’t be throwing stones so haphazardly?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            2 issues with his list? There is 1 issue. He was over points and made what is essentially an understandable mistake but he was rightfully penalised for that error. When you’re writing an army list from 5 different codexes using the new Datasheet presentation making mistakes is very easy to do. Particularly something like the Sanguiniary Priest who is literally the only space marine model in the entire game that doesn’t come with a bolt pistol as standard.

            Other than that a lot of people on this great have misread the Space Wolf rule. The guy in question knew that people could make that mistake show checked they were playing by the normal rules and the TO confirmed they were.

          • Median Trace

            It is a contentious rule interpretation that required carrying around a special email to validate the choice. That is an issue for me. You might not care about that. But it is essentially letting someone play with their own special FAQ that no one else is aware of.

            I am now officially done with this thread except to say that I have been listening to Rob Paulson’s podcast a lot recently and your screen name is great.

          • Muninwing

            in a regular game, i’ll take up to 10 points over if it can’t be helped. who cares? it’s supposed to be fun.

            in a tournament, if you’ve cheeze out your list to take advantage of some power-build, then you’ve had time to refine it. so cut the extra point. no exceptions.

          • Charon

            Thats why he was penalized and was not allowed to take the 120 points unit.

          • Muninwing

            that’s why he abdicated mot of the prizes and other rewards. because it was a accident, and he’s a good sportsman.

  • Legion Mike

    I was planning on going to Adepticon this year to play, but sadly I wasn’t able to and I’m really glad I didn’t. The issue with the 1pt for the Sanguinary Priest isn’t the issue to me. The HUGE issue is that the TO’s made an extremely poor choice and game someone a huge competitive advantage that absolutely no one besides the 1 player knew. IF I end up going to Adepticon next year (highly unlikely at this point) I sure as hell won’t be playing in any tournaments, and that is a sentiment that is being echoed through my 40k club. Bad move Adepticon TO’s, you’ve stained your own tournament.

    • Charon

      Without this ruling Dark Eldar (which are not even somewhere in the top half of this meta) would be basically unplayable. Same wording and the Lhamean + Venom HQ has been valid forever now. Why yould you rule the exact same wording different in this case?

      • Legion Mike

        But that is common knowledge though and in their FAQ’s correct? That is the point, they failed to notify the rest of the field of this and gave one person a competitive advantage over the rest of the field. I’m not attacking the player, I’m attacking the TO’s for making a very poor choice not to notify the rest of the field by amending their FAQ’s and sending an email to all those who registered. IF they had done that there wouldn’t be an issue here.

        • Charon

          Everybody is free to ask them about rulings beforehand. How is this “giving a competitive advantage”?
          It would only be if other players got a different answer, which to my knowledge did not happen.

      • An_Enemy

        You keep saying this, but the wording for Lone Wolves and Court of the Archon aren’t the same. One says “MUST” the other says “CAN.”

        • Charon

          None of them says “must”

        • PinkyandtheBrain

          Which one says MUST exactly?

        • Muninwing

          no.

          neither say must.

          one says for x you need y

          the other says if you include x then y gets an advantage

          they are not actually phrased the same at all. but not how you mean.

          on the other hand… Commissars have the exact same wording as LWs, but you don’t see anyone claiming that you can take them anyway without a command squad.

    • Mr_Pickles

      If you can, the Friendly 40k event was way cooler, I couldn’t make it in this year, but just walking by you could tell people were having a great time.

    • David Leimbach

      It could have been worse. Eldar could have won and then we’d never hear the end of the whining about it.

  • Adrien Fowl

    These super sharp lists have completely broken the fun for me. If the game continues like this, I am sure that a lot of players are end up moving to more friendly systems.

    • Matt Craufurd

      So basically you’re saying you’re going to stop playing 40k because people don’t play fluffy fun lists at the main singles tournament at Adepticon?

      • PinkyandtheBrain

        Yeah I don’t get why there are so many TFG ‘casual’ players who think that they have a right to tell other people how to enjoy their hobby. Let competitive players play against each other with competitive lists why does that stop casual or narrative players enjoying the way they want to play? Why does one group feel that their way of hobbling is the only way and they have to attack others for enjoying differently? Why is that group always casual gamers?

        • kloosterboer

          Ironically Pinky, it seems to be the other way ’round with regards to AOS.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            True 👍 there are a large portion of people (not only competitive players I’d add) that hate AoS and AoS players for no good reason. At least we can say they are merely childishly acting out because Warhammer was taken away from them.

          • Muninwing

            … and the rest of us who have legitimate issues with one aspect or another of the new game get lumped in with the whiners rather than taken seriously…

      • Adrien Fowl

        I am just saying that these lists have put me off tournaments. This is not how I enjoy this hobby because I am convinced that 40k has never been a really balanced game.

        • Charon

          There are different types of tournaments (Adepticon also had narrative campaigns and a fun tournament with way different lists). The 40k champ tournament is purely competitive. I dont see why anybody who does not like this playstyle would join in and be put off?

          Also that 40k is not a balanced game is not only a tournament problem and does also effect every other game mode. No matter how fluffy and soft you think your Eldar list is, it is still a ton harder than any DE list around.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            He might be alluding to without saying, that he is encountering this on the regular where he plays. We see it all the time near our FLGS and usually these guys end up sitting waiting for a game because no one wants to play with them. I feel bad so I play but they definitely aren’t the most enjoyable games.

          • Charon

            Sorry but this is your fault then.
            I definitely do not enjoy getting my hand burnt, thats why I do not stick them into the oven.
            If I do, I have no right to complain about the damn oven.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Umm, what?

          • Charon

            If you regret playing games with certain people and dont deem them enjoyable dont play them.
            There is a reason why nobody plays them.
            If you want to be the martyr that sacrifices himself out of good will and pity, that is ok. But martyrs dont complain afterwards.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            You clearly missed my point. But you do have a point.

          • Adrien Fowl

            I totally agree with you. W40k is not famous for their perfectly balanced factions. That is why I do not really like these lists and events. But hey, if you like it, I won’t be the one to tell you that you should not go. Everyone ought to do what they see fits best theis preferences and tastes.

            I understand what you say about fluffy army lists and I am still waiting for a new Dark Eldar codex to be able to field all my Wyches. I love the models and would love to be able to field my four units of them but… GW should do something with them.

            In any case, going back to the topic, these super sharp lists make me wanna rip my eyes out of their sockets. 🙁

  • Havik110

    does anyone else cringe at the thought of wolves allying with DA?

    • Djbz

      Allying isn’t the problem in my eyes, they do fight for the same side and will occasionally show up at the same battle.
      Running around in each other’s units however is just wrong- they don’t get on well enough to do that

    • Shiwan8

      One must understand that the present day situation in 40k is pretty much just bunch of people doing things that make no sense at all just to gain more power. If a text could be sexually assaulted the present mind set of the majority would be radically pointing towards that act.

  • David Metcalfe

    mistakes happen, thats life. if it was at the end when all was found out then unfortunately things like this happen. normally TO do 2 things, 1 get lists sent in before hand for them to check them over. 2 have the caveat that if things are pointed out during the event then the unit in question can’t be used or that player can carry on playing but can’t win the event or all games against him count as a full win to the other player. either way some form of penalty (for not being able to complete a correct army list). it is bad form for the TO to “let this go” without any penalty mainly for the sake of the events reputation. it can be always argued that “did it make a difference” but that is not the point in an organised event. was this list done by one of his mates?

    • archie d

      On the Long War podcast they did say he was penalized in some fashion for the remainder of his games per the normal Adepticon penalty rules. Can’t remember what the penalty was though, definitely wasn’t as severe as some of the things you mention.

  • LordKrungharr

    I read that this guy made his list one point over the 1850 limit? For such a champion how did he not have a calculator available? Though one less cyber wolf woulda done it proper, and allowed for the sanguinary bolt pistol, and maybe an auspex or something. Plus he still won without the sanguinary the next day right?

    I don’t get it, no storm shields?!?! Cover is so easily ignored and Azrael is a slow poke. That’s some major survival skills, despite the questionable use of lone wolves…. Which for some reason the TOs allowed…..which everyone wanting to use the CotGW detachment should have been informed about.

    Adepticon is big enough they could have a rules ruling email or text blast so ppl don’t have to wait for the FAQ to actually be updated; or do they already have that? I am not aware of one.

    • PinkyandtheBrain

      The Lone Wolves are completely legal according to the rules. The ruling was consistent with other similar rulings (like the DE court). If some one asked if Grav was Ap2 and they ruled it was would you expect them to inform the other players that they have made a ruling following the rules?

      • Muninwing

        … except that the two are in no way written similarly. and the LW rule is really clear when you stop making the assumption that the two work the same way…

  • Jinzo

    The list being incedulous is only part of the issue. Apparently some of his opponents pointed out that he wasn’t taking the -2 modifier when charging through terrain because the unit included bikes, but it also included infantry models. That kinda makes a big difference.

    • Charon

      Not really. The bike does not take the -2 modifier, the infantry does. You don’t mix rules.
      It is only important that at least one model (the bike) reaches BtB contact. The rest can go with -2 even that would bring them out of coherency and both sides pile in at their I value. So no difference in assault range and basically no difference in models allowed attacking. the units are not big enough for 2″ to matter.

  • SonoftheMountain

    I stopped playing 40k about 2 years ago. Honest question here, not trying to troll. Does anyone build a list just using the force org chart? Or do people just cherry pick detachments from a bunch of different books?

    • Charon

      Depends on your playstyle and what you agreed with your opponent. Even tournaments vary when it comes to force organisation and there are some armies that do not have formations or an alternate FOC.

    • Shiwan8

      Very few do it the old way.

    • grossedent

      Ah finally someone noticed the problem of w40k

    • Zingbaby

      I truly don’t believe most people cherry-pick like this… my group doesn’t anyway and the game remains fun for us.

      • PinkyandtheBrain

        Then why do you care and furiously attack those that do? Your group play the way they want why can’t other groups play the way they want? Why does your hobby have to be forced onto everyone else?

        • Zingbaby

          Ha, says the guy attacking anyone questioning this total Dtard jerk-list… that also happens to be illegal.

          Where am I forcing anyone to do anything? …you’re the one saying that I should be forced to accept that at tournaments, being a jerk is the norm and I should just accept it because it’s a tournament.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            I said nothing about being a Jerk. That is what you have labelled people. Tournaments are for competitive players to test their competitive lists against other people trying to do the same. Have I said or even implied you should play with competitive lists in narrative play or casual play or in your gaming group? Nope.

            Tournaments are for competitive players if you don’t like competitive play, don’t go to tournaments. It really is as simple as that. Why attack a group of like minded people getting together to enjoy the hobby in a way they all want? Why does that make them Jerks in any way shape or form?

          • Zingbaby
          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Seems that competitive is lost on you. That is fine not everyone understands the competitive mindset. The competitive mindset is not about winning it is about competing. Victory only means something to competitive players if it is earnt. So they want to test themselves against the best. Why attack a group of competitive gamers for getting together to compete against each other?

          • Zingbaby

            We can argue semantics if you like, to me, a competitor is someone that takes part in a contest despite the odds – not someone that _requires a handicap_ in the form of illegal lists.

            Again – we are talking about ILLEGAL lists.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Yes he was 1 point over. Yes that was bad my guess is that he forgot bolt Pistols cost a point on Sang Priests. An understandable error and one for which he was penalised. Nice try at deflection though…

          • Zingbaby

            Deflection?!? …what do you think most of the discussion throughout this entire comment section is about?

            Further, that wasn’t the only thing illegal – Nice try at deflection though…

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            What else was illegal? The Lone Wolf thing has been explained and not contested so what are you on about?

          • Zingbaby

            Not contested??!? …have you read any other comments here? …I think most agree it was an oversight by the TOS. What are you on about?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            We explained the rules. After the biscuit in each part of the great where the rules have been contested those thinking it was illegal has stopped their contesting of the point. Here it is for you please feel free to argue against if you think the Lone Wolves were illegal:

            Your mum says you are allowed 3 biscuits a day. For each chore you do you may take a digestive biscuit, this biscuit doesn’t count towards your 3 a day. If you don’t do any chores can you take a digestive?

          • Zingbaby

            Oh Ok, I didn’t see the biscuit rule in the codex until now. That proves it then.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            You inability to argue against the point is massively telling though. Thank you for your concession.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            So now we are agreed the list was legal but for the bolt pistol 1 point mistake. Why all the vitriol against “Jerk lists” (note the pluralistic when you’ve mentioned it yet claim that only applied to this one incidence of an illegal list). I presume you will now rescind those comments?

          • Muninwing

            yeah, that’s not at all what has happened.

            you all who apparently can’t read keep insisting that two unlike things are identical, and ignoring other similar things that are played as we who contest have suggested.

            then you make unverifiable statements, refuse to respond evenly to our legitimate points, and so we give up arguing with people who are adding stubborn vapidity to their illiteracy.

            then you make a claim like this.

            are you sure you’re not just trolling for effect here?

          • Charon

            It was the only illegal thing.
            If the TO deems an action or choice legal it is legal as the TO has the last saying, not you.
            If you think it is not correct, this is fine it is your opinion.
            D weapons and invisibbility for example are changed for a lot for tournaments either. This is not 1:1 what is in the rules but it is a rule approved by the TO so it is legal.
            Different TOs have differnt rules. This list would be illegal in tournaments that only allow 2 sources either although it is not illegal in the core rules of the game.
            You seem to have your own house rules as you shun multiple sources too.
            So short: If the TO is ok with it it is legal.

          • Zingbaby

            Let’s not forget we are not just talking about so-called “competitive lists” but … ILLEGAL ones.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            While I don’t think the guy is a Jerk, Tourneys were never this way in the past, but as the rules have changed and GWs non real support for Tourneys has kept on, players and TOs have let it evolve into this. I don’t disagree with the list, and every group should play how they play, but every individual should be able to play any list as well as long as they aren’t cheating. I realize it can be argued that if he was over by a point or two (since this seems to be in debate and I am not going to bother adding it up) that he is sliding in a powerful character or unit, but the TOs approved his list, and the main strategy I see here for his list is to make his opponent keep guessing, not that the list is OP (which I think is a BS term anyway), just to keep his opponent confused as to what he is going to do by scrambling their head with numbers, stats, and special rules….it works and is good on him. War is also psychological after all 🙂

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            I disagree that tourneys have changed much. The new rules allow you to do things you couldn’t before and ghetto prevalence of the Internet to share ideas and lists has created a wider gap between casual lists and tournament lists. This is no different than in 4th Ed having the Farsighted bomb or running 2 x 6 man Tac squads with plasma gun and plasma Cannon etc

            People at tournaments have always sought to take the most effective options just that disparity is greater due to the freedom of 7th.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Well I don’t really disagree with you, but since 3rd (when I came in) there weren’t as you stated, all the new options, and since the rules have opened these things up, it’s kind of hard to get mad at someone who is playing within the letter of the law so to speak. Like I said, if he was found to be legitimately cheating, well, that’s no good, but to call a list cheese that is within the rules or the TOs rules changes, he made himself the best he could be for the situation.

          • Charon

            May I remind you of 3.5 Chaos lists, invincible Eldar Falcon lists, BA rhino rush armies,…
            They all were dominating. The game has opened up, but these lists were possible before.
            Also note that 8 of the top 17 list was PURE Eldar. With eldar formation sprinkled in in quite a few of the remaining lists that was not pure eldar.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Pardon me, but what is your point? I did not say they were not possible back then. But of course we are also talking about how back then Allies, didn’t ‘exactly’ exist or detachments other than another detachment of your ‘specific’ race army to have more HQs etc., I am confused as to what you seem to want to argue about if you indeed are, that I am not.

          • Charon

            Allies also existed in tournaments. Basically every double tournament was “allied”. Every big Apocalypse battle was “allied”. Sure we had no official written rules but that didnt stop anybody playing traitor guard allied to black legion or Eldar allied to Grey Knights against Daemons allied to CSM.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            Brother, they were not around in 3rd if we are talking about that, and of course I agree with you in Apocalypse. But the point is, while you are correct that it didn’t stop anyone, it did in Games Day Tourneys and in most others ‘unless’ it was allowed and/or agreed upon. Chapter Approved alone (not mention Citadel Journal etc.,) came out with rules but specifically either prohibited or made clear to get an approval before using any rules published outside of codexes. I played two tourneys where they allowed rules that “If you can find them, you can play them (submit first of course)” It was an interesting and challenging time back then, but things are different now and that’s just the way it is. But to claim a list is cheesy or illegal when it is within the letter of the rules is just not accurate. By the way, I was editing I think when you wrote your reply.

          • Charon

            It is still the same. In friendly games everything you agreed on goes. IF you agree on not using allies and FW and sticking to CAD that is fine (and there is quite a few people who handle it like this).
            When it comes to tournies it is up to the TO. They are also different. Highlander only allows 1 of each unit. ITC only allows 2 different sources. ect.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            I know, and you are correct, it just seems like the “if your opponent agrees” gets lost in the “the rules says it right here” mentality at times 😉

          • Charon

            “That is fine, but it is not fine by me. Sorry look for someone else” is a perfect valid answer. Nobody is forcing you to play anyways.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            You really make it hard to and want to agree with you….you seem very argumentative when no one is even arguing a point against you…do you know that?

          • Charon

            Why? The main problem I see is that people seem to be not mature enough to say “no thanks” and instead say “well… ok…” and then go to the internet and complain about their horrible WAAC experience.

          • Asmodai

            I’ve attended tournaments where TOs went out of their way to say “This is a fun tournament, we don’t want insane lists”. They got told not to run tournaments because “tournaments are for winning” and when they ran then they still got the ‘jerk’ lists. I’m organizing a tournament at the moment and I’m trying to place a cost on multiple detachment/codex lists. I don’t want to ban anything, but I want to make every choice have a cost. I’m getting tournaments (ETC) players telling me to go play 5th ed, or just run a games day or campaign.

          • Charon

            So you see the struggle.
            The problem is measurement. things you deem jerk could be perfectly viable for another person. Things you deem ok may seem jerkish to the next.
            This is highly subjective.
            I have about 30.000 points of Eldar. Since the new codex I do not play them anymore in freindly game. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a friendly list against a person that still has to use a pre necron codex.
            Eldar vs DE or Imperial guard is so one sided that it is no fun at all… an all that without Knights, scatterbikes or aspect hosts.
            If I play pure CSM basically every SM army is a jerk army because everything is cheaper and/or has better stats.

            So how to decide what is ok and what not? Is a Knight reasonable? Yes? How about against nids who cant do anything against it? Still ok?

  • Malthrak

    Yay, a list that’s both illegal (was 1pt over the points limit the way it was being played in the event, was allowed to take Lone Wolves without appropriate Troop choices *AND* count them as taking up an Elites slot when their rules explicitly say they don’t) *and* actively violates longstanding fluff for Space Wolves and Dark Angels, on top of being explicitly designed to take advantage of the worst rules abuses in the game.

    This is totally great content that everyone should be featuring…not.

    • PinkyandtheBrain

      You realise the Lone Wolves were legal right?

      • Malthrak

        Not if you’re playing according to the rules and playing them as counting as taking up an FoC slot when their rules explicitly say they do not, and taking them without corresponding troops unless you’re going to try to argue that troops from other codex books in entirely different detachments counts.

        • PinkyandtheBrain

          Actually the rules tell you that you can take a Lone Wold as an Elite slot. They have the elite icon. Then there is another rule saying that you can take 1 for each troop choice and that these selections don’t count as elite slots.

          Your mum says you are allowed 3 biscuits a day. For each chore you do you may take a digestive biscuit, this biscuit doesn’t count towards your 3 a day. If you don’t do any chores can you take a digestive?

          Then another rule is on Tuesdays you must eat at least 2 of your 3 biscuits. On a Tuesday if I do no chores and eat 2 Digestives have I satisfied all the rules?

          • Malthrak

            Just because they have an elites icon doesnt mean they take up an elites slot when their rules say they dont. IG have had a number of such units through many editions and it was never in question for them (e.g. stuff like priests and commissars). This isnt a new thing.

            If a detachment rules on troop allocations counts units from other armies in other detachments, that’s a rather…generous ruling that pretty much nobody reading the text plainly would come to outside the most rules lawyer-ey of WAAC players.

          • Charon

            Priest and commisars have a different wording.
            The only thing stopping you doing the same with Commisars is “they do not count as mandatory HQ”. And as you need a mandatory HQ it cant be commisars only.
            I can see you are trying to be objective (so the last pargraph is not needed) but please argue with rules that are actually the same.
            As said a few times DE have the same text for their HQ court of the archon. And nobody ever complained about that either.
            Also what happens if GW actually FAQs this a different way from what you are reading (would not be the first time!) would they suddenly become a WAAC company of rules-lawyers and you still dont play it like they suggest?
            It does not matter in YOUR GAMES at all.

            Remember when the rules book told you the Priest from curse of the Wulfen replaces the Priest from the Space Wolf rules book? And how people argued you can use both although this was 100% against the rule as written with no interpretation?
            GW rules then you can have both. Stranger things have happened.

          • Malthrak

            They dont take up an FOC slot at all, in a CAD you can take 2 CCS’s and still take the commissars. Theyve worked like that since IIRC 3rd edition. Lone Wolves have the exact same wording, im looking at it right now where it says they take up no FOC slot. If they take up no FOC slot there is nothing to satisfy the mandatory Elites selection.

          • Charon

            No they dont. The only do not take a slot if you buy them together with troops.
            And even then the rules say for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army.
            And he had troop choices in his army. There is no word about “this detachemnt” or “troops from codex:space Wolves”
            So technically, even if you go for the other interpretation. Word by Word the DA scouts would bee enough to unlock them.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Though following that silly logic would actually make the list illegal. As he would then not have his mandatory Elite slots for the COF detachment.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Read both sentences it is very clear when they don’t take up elite slots and when they do. As stated before 7th Ed army building has completely changed from any previous edition. Army building is the single biggest change 7th Ed brought. So saying this worked this way since 3rd Ed is a nonsense when talking about list building.

          • Muninwing

            commissars have the SAME WORDING as LWs.

            it’s your precious archon’s court that has different words.

            now i’m convinced that you are just not even bothering to check. you’re just making stuff up, because you came to the table with an incorrect assumption that you are now trying to justify

          • Charon

            Not bothering to check is what you did.
            In what world is this:

            You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, each Commissar must be assigned to a different unit from the following list, which they then cannot leave: Company Command Squad, Platoon Command Squad, Infantry Squad, Special Weapons Squad, Heavy Weapons Squad, Conscripts, Veterans, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Militarum Tempestus Command Squad, Militarum Tempestus Scions. Only one Commissar can join each unit in this manner.

            the same as this:

            You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

          • Muninwing

            in a world with reading comprehension in it. did you really just post that? did you bother to read it?

            good logical fallacy — including extras that do not matter in order to exaggerate a difference that does not exist, and pretending that synonyms do not exist. too bad it’s bad logic.

            short version (repeated below with process):

            you (may/can) (take/include) one (lone wolf/commissar) for (each/every) (qualifying unit). (they/this selection) (do/does) not (take/use) up a force organization slot. (insert commissar’s third rule about attachment here)

            written at different times. by different authors. say the EXACT SAME THING when accounting for different methods of expression, and remembering that GW is frequently inconsistent in this manner with wordings.

            Commissars have three rules in that paragraph. by including the third one, inapplicable to this argument, in order to make them look more different, you have shown that your argument is disingenuous.

            Lone wolves have two rules. (1) that they can be taken at a rate of one per “unlocker” (troop, WG), and (2) that they do not take an elites spot (the relevant issue here, without which the adepticon list falls apart structurally)

            Commissars have three. that they can be taken at a rate of one per unlocker (command squads), and (2) that they do not take up an HW slot. their third rule is how they attach to another unit, and irrelevant for this discussion… meaning you either carelessly read the section, didn’t understand what you rad, or didn’t bother to check and just copy-pasted without bothering to try to understand.

            meaning that you’re either stubborn, unqualified to take part in this discussion, or just a troll. i’ll assume #1 for now.

            let’s show how the two line up exactly when you account for synonyms. because you came to this argument with a bone to pick, and the assumption that the LW operates just like the Court argument… but without a fundamental understanding of either. and you’ve held your ground on this issue despite time and again opportunities to bother to read the rules to see what they actually say.

            1: (a) you can take one lone wolf for each troops choice or unit of wolf guard or wolf guard terminators in your army. (b) this selection does not use up a force organization slot.

            2: (a) You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. (b) They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection.

            3: Retainers: (not a) For each Archon included in a Detachment, (still same rule, not b either) the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

            observe.

            you (may/can) (take/include) one (lone wolf/commissar) for (each/every) (qualifying unit). (they/this selection) (do/does) not (take/use) up a force organization slot.

            the Court does not say this. it says:

            For each (x), (it) can include a (y) that (doesn’t take up a slot).

            “may” shows choice and option.
            – in the first two, the option is whether or not you include a LW, not HOW you include them.
            – in the third, “may” is an unlocked option dependent upon the first half of the same rule (inclusion of archons). nothing restricts how many you can take, only how many you can take that o not take up slots. nor are you restricted from taking options that do take up slots, because there is exactly zero parity between the non-no-slot options and the arcons.

            this isn’t complicated. you’ve just been assuming the whole time that a rule you don;t know (LW) is the same as a rule you know (court), when in reality they are nothing alike.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            It is a new thing to 7th as the rules have changed. Having an Elite icon does indeed make you an Elite Choice. Their rules would need to over rule that status quote for it to jot apply. They don’t they only don’t take up an Elite slot if taken using the other units to unlock them.

            AM is a 6th Ed codex and has entirely different wording. The wording on this is in line with DE Court of the Archon and the ruling was consistent with the ruling on that case an the commonly accepted way of playing that. Which as it happens is just following what the rules say.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Which brings me back to the biscuits. Can I eat a digestive in the first example? If so then I must be OK to fulfill the 2nd example by eating 2 Digestives without doing any chores.

          • Malthrak

            If they still count as elites toward a detachments requirements, then the line about them not taking up any FOC slots literally serves no purpose.

            Adepticon 2016 is the only event I have ever heard of that has allowed this.

          • Charon

            It does. Because if you take them into a normal FOC you can only take 3.
            Making them a free option to allows you up to 9.
            The other reading would serve no purpose in this case.
            Also word by word the interpretation aside you can buy one for each troop choice in your army. Note: not “in your detachment” nor “space wolf troops” just “troops in your army”.

          • Malthrak

            If theyre not filling a slot theyre not folling a mandatory Elites choice selection, or do people think this only applies to CAD’s?

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            Why does it literally serve no purpose when we’ve explicitly explained it’s purpose. They don’t take up elite slots when you take them with an unlocking unit. This is all explained very clearly in their rules…

          • Malthrak

            Yes…they dont take up slots…so they dont fill the mandatory elites slot for the COF detachment, and must be taken on conjunction with other units as listed in their unit entry.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            There is no must be taken in conjunction with other units rule though. That is a fiction made up by people on this thread. For each troop choice and WG unit in your army you may take an extra Lone Wolf (this is addition to the normal method of taking them as nothing states it replaces the usual method). This type of selection doesn’t take up an Elite slot. So you have 2 options take Lone Wolves as Elite slots this is the default way of adding them to detachments. Or take a Troops etc choice and take a Lone Wolf that doesn’t take up a slot.

        • Mr_Pickles

          I think the “grey area” is that the rules just state “Troops” and not “Space Wolf Troops” or something to that quality. By stating simply “…for each Troops choice… …in your army” it can be read that for “any and all troops choices” you can then kick Lone Wolves out of the elite’s slot.

          • PinkyandtheBrain

            That is not the a grey area at all and has nothing to do with the posted list. Read my post below for an undetstanding of why the Lone Wolves were 100% unquestionably legal without any grey area or dodgy interpretation required.

          • Muninwing

            don’t even bother. this has turned into trolling.

  • DJ860

    Obviously the list was illegal 1pt, units, whatever. To be honest, i’m pretty torn between applauding the creativity of someone to beat the obvious strength of the Eldar players and someone being over points limit and using approved interpretations of the rules.

    Taking the 1pt infraction away, it’s interesting to see something like this win and what it could hold for future tournaments. Better a super friends list than a super spam list in my opinion. Less boring at least.

    • JP

      Where’s he a point over? The numbers listed there all add up to 1850 on the calculator.

      • ILikeToColourRed

        from comments, he forgot that Sang Priests pay 1pt for a pistol

        • JP

          Checked the codex. It’s weird that the priest doesn’t have a shooting weapon of any kind. Seems like an honest mistake to me. I think anybody could have forgotten he didn’t come with at least a bolt pistol. Marines ALWAYS have a bolt something.

    • An_Enemy

      There’s nothing creative about a super fiends list. They’ve been winning tournaments for a while now. It’s just grabbing Imperial dexes and cherry picking to abuse Battle Brothers interactions.

      • highwind

        Well, they are winning US-tournaments… Because in most other places of this world competitive players know how you can quite easily beat “death stars”

    • Shiwan8

      Deathstars are the cancer of this game right there with the spammers.

  • JP

    Fast and furious. I like it. Though the mish mash combination of units is kind of dizzying.

    • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

      Which was probably his main strategy (the mish mash combination) to keep his opponent in a mind set of disarray for planning.

  • IHRVoices

    I don’t understand why everyone is so quick to judge and argue over this list… (1) he checked with Adepticon organizers specifically regarding the lone wolves and they were APPROVED = not cheating/illegal. (2) Yes, his Sanguinary Priest was 1 point over… but in his final games Aaron played WITHOUT this unit… a 120 pt deduction.

    So basically, you have a player who beat out other top players using 120 less points.

    A majority of people commenting either (1) didn’t play at Adepticon so that 1 point didn’t affect them or (2) did play but realistically didn’t stand a chance of beating a player like Aaron anyway.

    Don’t be sheep. Do some research before grabbing your pitch forks next next.

  • Camden Poole

    What a bucket of lame.

  • Ted

    this game has gotten weird….I miss the good ol days of 1hq/2troops and a single codex. You kids and your formations and detachments, get off my lawn!

    • Muninwing

      i see some benefits and some drawbacks

      really, i think if they’d only allowed ObSec in a CAD (old FOC), and detachments that were not CAD did not have access to ObSec in any way (but had other options), that would have been more fair.

      at least there would be a tradeoff.

      • Ted

        I think it’s just gone so far. I love variety and flavor but it’s gotten crazy to keep up for me personally.

  • Bruce Merker

    Honestly, I would have ruled the same way the TO did. An I might not have thought it was significant enough to issue an updated faq. You can’t blame the player. He did what he was supposed to do and asked for a ruling ahead of time. Does anyone think that the lone wolves played a significant role in his wins? I’d be more upset with the bolt pistol. Aaron is a vet, and should have caught that one.

    • Charon

      To be fair, most army building tools dont catch this. And seeing the list I could only track it because the issue is the same with Eldar autarchs (and interestingly i know no casual player – which are here ranting about cheating – who ever bought a chainsword in order to swap it for another weapon.)

  • Crablezworth

    Remember when 40k wasn’t apoc?

  • captkaruthors

    Remember when 40k actually had REAL armies…and not a combination of BS units from multiple books? This list is a horrible mess and oozes…let’s maximize what’s stupid about this game to win said game. In no way, shape, or form does this list equate: “army”. How does one make a list like this and not feel dirty in the slightest? How do you live with yourself knowing that you’ve completely missed the point of the game and what it represents? Just so you can win a tournament? A tournament that has no real money tied to it? Or comes with no real accolades that the real world sees as being a legitimate achievement? If this is the new norm for 40k…then it needs to die. No one can seriously look at this..and go: “Yup, this is what 40k is all about and it’s awesome!”

    • Charon

      You feel better about spamming scattebikes and Wraithknights then? At least everything is from one source. Granted it is the same maximised list but…

      I really wonder why people jump in a topic that is not even mildly interesting for them, effects their game not in a single way and complain how some people like to play each other.

      Do you jump in BDSM topic too just to complain how these people are ruining your sexlife?

      • captkaruthors

        No. I don’t feel better about any of that either..and is completely irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. Look at that list and tell me: does this represent the essence of 40K and what Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, etc were thinking when they created this game and this universe? This list is FN nonsense and you know it. This isn’t an “army”. It’s a random gathering of models being brandied about as an “army”. Oh sure, it’s a tournament you claim. Tournaments are all about winning and competition you claim. Great. But at the cost of the identity of the game itself? This game is no longer about military factions and armies fighting in epic conflict with one another. It’s now devolved into a random mess of models all taken together to gain benefits to win games at the expense and lack of respect of the background of the forces that these models represent. It’s not about fun at this point. It’s about living with yourself after fielding something like this. Do you really need to field a list like this to compete in 40K now? How sad. How sad has this great game become when this is what a “winning list” has been reduced to. A pile of models all bunched together simply to gain an advantage…how depressing. As for your last comment. Dude grow the F up. You use that as a means to demean my point and/or to provoke a response. Neither is working. So I suggest you move along.

        • Charon

          Actually it does as GW developed it that way. We did not write the rules, we follow them. The rules allow this without breaking and bending.
          So actually yes, this is exactly what GW wanted to do because GW did it.
          Nobody went with a gun to the designers forcing them to write the rules as they are. Nobody forced them to create grossly unbalanced factions, formations and ally matrices.

          If you dont like it fine. Play how you want to play. But shouting at people who are plaing the game by the book (and not by the ever changing fluff… remember when DE and Eldar were mortal enemies? So who forced GW to change the fluff here?)

          So no. I am a grown adult and I dont throw tantrums on the internet because a bunch of peple play the game a way they enjoy it and not the way I want them to play.

          Also remember. Unbound is a GW invention and not even allowed at most tournements. So tell me whats the point behind “use any model from your collection you like” if everybody has to ask you about your opinion.

          • captkaruthors

            Charon, your rambling isn’t changing the fact that you miss the forest for the trees in the point I’m trying to make. I’m also not throwing a tantrum on the internet either. Pure stupid hyperbole on your part. Something that you seem to excel at…in reading your lame posts. Do me a favor and move on. You aren’t adding anything to this discussion other than trying to shout anyone down that shares a different opinion than yours. GW today is much different than it was before…because it’s publicly owned. Every decision they make with the game is to benefit shareholders. You claim that “GW meant it to be this way! it’s the way it’s written!” Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. How can you say this reflects any sort of military army or organization? This isn’t an “army”. Not in the sense of how they used to be defined in the game. But of course you ignore that. Again, ask yourself honestly: Is this how Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, etc. envisioned the game to be played? Probably not. How does a list like this inspire and grow a community? How does a list like this endear anyone to want to play this game if it flies in the face of how the game was originally envisioned to be? Since you are unable to articulate a response without jumping down everyone’s throat that you disagree with…just move on. You don’t get it and never will apparently.

          • Charon

            You are right. the game is different than it was. But obviously im not the one having a problem with it.
            You made no point aside from personal insults. So we established GW changed. We established the marketing has the command. And you are still blaming a small group of players that make their own event to enjoy themselves.
            You did not organize it, you did not partizipate. But you decided to balme them for everything GW did wrong over the last decade.

    • Koonitz

      I am a believer in lore, history, and fluff. It’s what keeps me engrossed in the 40k hobby. I love building thematic lists. I don’t like tournaments and I don’t particularly enjoy playing against lists like what was demonstrated here.

      Despite that:

      “How do you live with yourself knowing that you’ve completely missed the point of the game and what it represents?”

      What is the point of the game and what it represents? Please provide an objective answer that is not just your opinion.

      • captkaruthors

        The point of this game is to simulate (roughly) military combat with race specific armies…in epic future combat in a dystopian universe. This list is not and “army”..it is a grouping of models solely taking to gain an advantage. Ask yourself this: Is this what Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, etc. envisioned the game as? Probably not.

        • Koonitz

          Sounds like an opinion. It’s clearly not what they, nor many of the others at that tournament felt. And I’m sure many of them still had fun.

          • captkaruthors

            Ask anyone that played half of these dumb lists if they truly had fun. Most of these people share the same mindset as the guy that created this list. If they want to torture them selves with these abortion lists…that’s their prerogative. Your point is well seen…but I think you miss my point. The people who created this game probably look at something like this with disappointment and shake their heads. If you know anything about the history of this game you’d know I’m right.

          • captkaruthors

            If they like to torture themselves sure. The other people that are playing at this level have the same outlook on the game…it’s no wonder.

          • Charon

            Why do you think it is torture to them?
            There are people who like running. They have fun running. I think it is boring torture. But I would never shout at them “You cant have fun running around because I have not!”

          • captkaruthors

            Because I’ve played in it Charon…for years…that’s how I know. You think I have no perspective on this when I have more than you realize. I was once just as much of a list crunching player as these guys. After a while, it burns you out and becomes tiresome. Trust me. Continuing doing this is some strange mild form of torture. I also realized that you sacrifice some portion of your outlook on the game and what it means.

          • Koonitz

            Just because you pushed yourself and you found it to be torture, doesn’t mean others do.

            After all, the afor-mentioned BDSM sex crowd. Me, I find that type of sexual activity to be no different than torture. But there’s a HUGE community that really enjoys it.

            You are still arguing nothing more than an opinion, based on your own personal experiences.

          • Charon

            To you. Flashnews: not everyone reacts/feels/thinks the same way. That is YOUR story, not that of other people.
            “I did not enjoy it so nobody else can possibly enjoy it” is not a valid statement.

        • Charon

          They did not envision “unbound” either. Or “we dont sell enough of X, lets do a few formations with multiples of this unit as mandatory core!”
          If nobody envisioned that way, why was it designed that way?
          Why are tournments heavily restricting comps opposed to the GW stance of “everything goes, even if it contradict the rules… it is your game!”

          • captkaruthors

            You are missing my point so please stop responding to my posts. You don’t get it and you never will. Move on.

          • Charon

            Im nnot missing your point. You are just unable to let a group of players play as they see fit without spilling bile in their direction.
            I got it. YOU dont like the way THEY play. Even if you not participate. You are on the sidline yelling “badwrongfun” in their direction because they do not play the game like you think it has to be played.

          • captkaruthors

            There is no bile spilling. Just pointing out the obvious. They can play how they want. If they want to waste time and money that way is fine by me, but it doesn’t change the fact that the list above is a perfect example of how bad this game has degenerated over the years. The sales numbers prove it. The game has become so convoluted that it’s eating itself into oblivion. It’s gotten so far away from the essence of what was originally intended and has turned into this mess. It’s no wonder why many of the original designers look at the game with a sour face. It’s really quite sad that a list such as this passes for an “army” these days.

          • Charon

            And you are using this topic to talk about something that happened over the last decade? Sudden clarity? Why do you think the old designers went and made their own games? You are barking at the wrong tree here.
            You can find many different group that play the game in a lot of different ways. There are diehard fluffplayers and diehard powergamers. everything is peaceful. They normally do not cross over.
            These armies always existed. Most of the time even justified through the fluff. Invulnerable falcons in 3rd? Blood angel rhino rushes in 3rd? And that actually was at a time people plaed more fluffy armies.
            Design is not perfect and it is up to you to say “screw it, I gather my friends and houserule stuff” or decide to go to the internet and blame the marketing decisions of GW to the tourney crowd.
            Playing against ONE wraithknight is already obnoxious and unfun for a lot of armies and it is not unfluffy in a wraith army. Still it is overpowered cheese and at the same time a perfectly normal and valid unit choice. Where do you start telling people what to use from their collection and building their armies for them because it has to be like you envision it?

  • sethmo

    Why is anyone playing in a tourney that allows that many freaking allies?

    2-3 formations/cads/datasheets, TOPS, this is a perfect example why.

    Eldar are powerful because they are flat out priced horrendously. A scatbike is 1 point more then a possessed marine, a wraithknight is insanely cheap for a gargant.

    And lets not even get started on 1850, which was designed to cut back on 5th ed 2000 point shenanigans. 1500 points is entirely the way to go now with the point reductions occurring. (WAAAAAY harder to build these bs lists.)

    But lets keep blaming the game.

    • Brillow80

      1500 points, limited CADalliesformations, and Highlander. This format would not only test a competitive players list building skills it would also naturally result in thematic, colorful, and fluffy lists to boot!

      • GIGroundNPound

        1500 points is way to small a game…

  • Kevin Kingswell

    Throwing my own two cents into the pool here but am I right in that you always have to follow the unit composition as it is written. For example if I chose my tactical marine squad it would say it must be made a minimum of four tactical marines and one sergeant as that is the composition as written.

    If this is true and I am sure it is then in this case we have to look at the composition for the lone wolf and it says the composition is 1 Lone Wolf but then you would also have to follow the text underneath saying about having one for each troops choice or wolf guard etc. I mean as far as I know the composition part has to be followed so you cant have squads of say 17 tactical marines and in this case you would have to follow the text about the parent units.

  • highwind

    The US 40k meta must be the worst in the world when such a list in able to win a tournament xD